Abdullah Cavus v. Northrop Grumman Corporation et al
Filing
10
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson remanding case to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case number BC655322. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (mrgo)
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 17-3346 PA (FFMx)
Title
Abdullah Cavus v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, et al.
Present: The Honorable
Date
May 8, 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 Northrop Grumman Corporation
(“Defendant”). In its Notice of Removal, Defendant asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over the
action brought against it by plaintiff Abdullah Cavus (“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, Defendants 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).
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 17-3346 PA (FFMx)
Date
Title
May 8, 2017
Abdullah Cavus v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, et al.
In support of its allegations that the Court possesses diversity jurisdiction, the Notice of Removal
alleges: “At the time Plaintiff commenced this action and at the time of removal, Plaintiff was a citizen
of the State of California. Plaintiff alleges that he was at all relevant times a resident of the County of
Los Angeles. Thus, Plaintiff, by his own admission, is a citizen of the State of California. Additionally,
a review of Plaintiff’s employment records reflects Plaintiff’s California residence.” (Notice of Removal
¶ 17 (internal citation omitted) (citing Compl. ¶ 1).) As the Notice of Removal indicates, the Complaint
alleges only Plaintiff’s residence. (See Compl. ¶ 1.) Because the only support for Defendants’
allegation of Plaintiff’s citizenship is an allegation of residence, and residence is not the same as
citizenship, the Notice of Removal’s allegations are insufficient to establish Plaintiff’s citizenship. See
Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857 (“A person residing in a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus
is not necessarily a citizen of that state.”). As a result, Defendants’ allegations are insufficient to invoke
this Court’s diversity jurisdiction.
For the foregoing reasons, 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. BC655322. 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?