Peter Metropoulos v. BMW of North America, LLC et al
Filing
9
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson, remanding case to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case number BC639130. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (mrgo)
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 17-982 PA (ASx)
Title
Peter Metropoulos v. BMW of North America, LLC
Present: The Honorable
Date
February 9, 2017
PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
V.R. Vallery
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 BMW of North America, LLC
(“Defendant”) on February 7, 2017. (Docket No. 1.) Defendant asserts that the Court has jurisdiction
over this action, brought by plaintiff Peter Metropoulos (“Plaintiff”), based on diversity of citizenship.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over
those 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, 395 (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).
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. A natural person must be a citizen of the United States and be domiciled in a state to
establish “state citizenship” for diversity purposes. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088,
1090 (9th Cir. 1983). A person is domiciled in the place he resides with the intent to remain or to which
he intends 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.
Here, the Notice of Removal asserts that Plaintiff, “at the time this action was commenced, was
and still is a citizen of the State of California. Specifically, plaintiff was and still is domiciled in Los
Angeles County, California.” (Notice of Removal ¶ 12.) Although Defendant cites Plaintiff’s
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 17-982 PA (ASx)
Date
Title
February 9, 2017
Peter Metropoulos v. BMW of North America, LLC
Complaint in support of this allegation, the Complaint makes no reference to Plaintiff’s citizenship or
domicile. Rather, the Complaint states only that “Plaintiff is a resident of Los Angeles County,
California.” (Id., Carlson Decl., Exh. A, Compl. ¶ 2.)
“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. In this case,
Defendant has not affirmatively alleged Plaintiff’s actual citizenship. Because an individual is not
necessarily domiciled where he resides, Defendant’s allegation is insufficient to establish that Plaintiff is
domiciled in California. See id.
As a result, Defendant has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate the Court’s diversity
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court remands this action to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case
No. BC639130. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?