Charles Dawson v. Medi-Trans, Inc. et al

Filing 11

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Percy Anderson:, ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson. Therefore, Defendant has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate the Court's diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court remands this action to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC588425. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). IT IS SO ORDERED. Case remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court at Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Case number BC588425 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (mailed 9/2/15) (lom)

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-6617 PA (AGRx)

Title

Charles Dawson v. Medi-Trans, Inc., et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

September 1, 2015

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Stephen Montes Kerr

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER

Before the Court is a Notice of Removal filed by defendants Medi-Trans, Inc., Cesar Moreno,
and Josee Sanz on August 28, 2015.1/ Defendant asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over the action
brought against it by plaintiff Charles Dawson (“Plaintiff”) based on the Court’s diversity jurisdiction.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over
matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511
U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). A suit filed in state court may be
removed to federal court if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28
U.S.C. § 1441(a). A removed action must be remanded to state court if the federal court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party
seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Prize Frize,
Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.) Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 1999). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if
there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566
(9th Cir. 1992).
In attempting to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, Removing Defendant must prove that
there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Persons are domiciled in the places they reside with the intent to remain or
to which they intend to return. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001).
“A person residing in a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not necessarily a citizen
of that state.” Id. For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is a citizen of any state where
it is incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c); see
also Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990).
1/

Cesar Moreno (erroneously sued as Cesar Romano) and Josee Sanz (erroneously sued as
Jose Saenz) have been dismissed from the action. Therefore, the only current defendant is medi-Trans,
Inc. (“Defendant”).
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-6617 PA (AGRx)

Date

Title

September 1, 2015

Charles Dawson v. Medi-Trans, Inc., et al.

The Notice of Removal alleges that Plaintiff “is now, and when this action was commenced, an
individual residing in, and a citizen of, the State of California. Exhibit A hereto, Compl. ¶ 6.” (Notice
of Removal ¶ 6.) As the Notice of Removal makes clear, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges only Plaintiff’s
“residence.” (See Compl. ¶ 6 (“At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff Charles Dawson was a resident
of the State of California.”).) Because an individual is not necessarily domiciled where he or she resides,
Defendant’s allegations of Plaintiff’s citizenship, based on an allegation of residence, are insufficient to
establish Plaintiff’s citizenship. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d at 857. “Absent unusual
circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the
actual citizenship of the relevant parties.” Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857; Bradford v. Mitchell Bros. Truck
Lines, 217 F. Supp. 525, 527 (N.D. Cal. 1963) (“A petition [for removal] alleging diversity of
citizenship upon information and belief is insufficient.”). As a result, Defendant’s allegations are
insufficient to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction.
Therefore, Defendant has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate the Court’s diversity
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court remands this action to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No.
BC588425. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2