Faranak Safa v. Lerner New York, Inc. et al

Filing 7

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - COURT 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. BC 614196. IT IS SO ORDERED. (mailed 4/25/16)Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (lom)

JS-6

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

CV 16-2713 PA (AGRx)

Title

Faranak Safa v. Lerner New York, Inc.

Present: The Honorable

Date

April 25, 2016

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 defendant Lerner New York, Inc. (“Defendant”)
on April 20, 2016. Defendant asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over the action brought against it by
plaintiff Faranak Safa (“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, 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. To establish citizenship for diversity purposes, a natural person must be a
citizen of the United States and be domiciled in a particular state. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd.,
704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1983). 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).
The Notice of Removal alleges that Defendant “is informed and believes, and on that basis
alleges, that Plaintiff is now, and was at the time the State Court Action was commenced, a citizen of the

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 16-2713 PA (AGRx)

Date

Title

April 25, 2016

Faranak Safa v. Lerner New York, Inc.

State of California within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Complaint, ¶ 8 (stating that
‘[t]hroughout her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff has been residing . . . [in] West Hills, California
. . . .’).” (Notice of Removal ¶ 9.) As the Notice of Removal indicates, Plaintiff alleges in her
Complaint that during her employment with Defendant she “has been residing . . . [in] West Hills,
California . . . .” (Compl. ¶ 8.) Because an individual is not necessarily domiciled where he or she
resides, Defendant’s allegation, on information and belief, that Plaintiff is a California citizen based on
an allegation of residence, is insufficient to establish Plaintiff’s citizenship. See Kanter v. WarnerLambert 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.”).
Moreover, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges her residence only for the time period [f]rom on or about May 7,
2012, until she was constructively terminated on or about October 14, 2015” and that “[t]hroughout her
employment with Defendant, Plaintiff has been residing” at the West Hills address. (Compl. ¶ 8.) For
purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a parties’ citizenship is assessed at the time an action is commenced,
and for a removed case, must exist both at the time of filing and the time of removal. See Strotek Corp.
v. Air Transport Ass’n, 300 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e start with the core principle of
federal removal jurisdiction on the basis of diversity—namely, that it is determined (and must exist) as
of the time the complaint is filed and removal is effected.”). Defendant’s allegations of Plaintiff’s
domicile, which are based only on where Plaintiff resided during her employment, and not necessarily
where she is resided when the action was filed and removed, does not meet Defendant’s burden to
establish Plaintiff’s citizenship. 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. BC
614196. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2