Patrick Chraghchian v. Yaacoy Metzler et al

Filing 15

MINUTE (In Chambers) Order Re: Remand by Judge Fernando M. Olguin: IT IS ORDERED that: (1) The above-captioned action shall be remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, 111 North Hill St., Los Angeles, CA 90012, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC 1447(c). (2) The Clerk shall send a certified copy of this Order to the state court.(3) All pending motions are denied as moot. (Made JS-6, Case Terminated.) (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 17-5619 FMO (KSx)

Title

Patrick Chraghchian v. Yaacov Metzler

Present: The Honorable

Date

August 21, 2017

Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge

Vanessa Figueroa

None

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorney Present for Plaintiff:

Attorney Present for Defendant:

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order Re: Remand

On May 26, 2017, Patrick Chraghchian (“plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles against Yaacov Jake Metztler
(“defendant”). (See Dkt. 1, Notice of Removal (“NOR”) at ¶ 1 & Exhibit A (“Complaint”)). On July
28, 2017, defendant removed that action on diversity jurisdiction grounds pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1332 and 1441. (See Dkt. 1, NOR at ¶ 3).
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized
by Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114
S.Ct. 1673, 1675 (1994). The courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears
affirmatively from the record. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n. 3, 126
S.Ct. 1854, 1861 (2006). Federal courts have a duty to examine jurisdiction sua sponte before
proceeding to the merits of a case, see Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583, 119
S.Ct. 1563, 1569 (1999), “even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H
Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 1244 (2006).
“The right of removal is entirely a creature of statute and a suit commenced in a state court
must remain there until cause is shown for its transfer under some act of Congress.” Syngenta
Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32, 123 S.Ct. 366, 369 (2002) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Where Congress has acted to create a right of removal, those statutes, unless
otherwise stated, are strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.1 See id. Unless otherwise
expressly provided by Congress, “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district
courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the
defendants, to the district court[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see Dennis v. Hart, 724 F.3d 1249, 1252
(9th Cir. 2013) (same). A removing defendant bears the burden of establishing that removal is

1

Given Congress’s intent to facilitate adjudication of certain class actions in federal court,
an “antiremoval presumption” does not exist in cases removed pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company, LLC
v. Owens, 135 S.Ct. 547, 554 (2014).
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

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

CV 17-5619 FMO (KSx)

Title

Date

Patrick Chraghchian v. Yaacov Metzler

August 21, 2017

proper. See Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006) (per
curiam) (noting the “longstanding, near-canonical rule that the burden on removal rests with the
removing defendant”); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (“The strong
presumption against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of
establishing that removal is proper.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, if there is any
doubt regarding the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, the court must resolve those doubts
in favor of remanding the action to state court. See Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 (“Federal jurisdiction
must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”).
“Under the plain terms of § 1441(a), in order properly to remove [an] action pursuant to that
provision, [the removing defendant] must demonstrate that original subject-matter jurisdiction lies
in the federal courts.” Syngenta Crop Protection, 537 U.S. at 33, 123 S.Ct. at 370. Failure to do
so requires that the case be remanded, as “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction may not be waived, and.
. . the district court must remand if it lacks jurisdiction.” Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n, Inc.
v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003). Indeed, “[i]f at any time before final
judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be
remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 n. 2
(9th Cir. 1988) (“It is elementary that the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court is not a
waivable matter and may be raised at anytime by one of the parties, by motion or in the
responsive pleadings, or sua sponte by the trial or reviewing court.”); Washington v. United Parcel
Serv., Inc., 2009 WL 1519894, *1 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (a district court may remand an action where
the court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction either by motion or sua sponte).
Although defendant bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper, see Abrego
Abrego, 443 F.3d at 684 (noting the “longstanding, near-canonical rule that the burden on removal
rests with the removing defendant”); Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 (“The strong presumption against
removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal
is proper.”) (internal quotation marks omitted), defendant has not made any attempt to
demonstrate that this court has diversity jurisdiction over the instant matter.2 See 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a).3 Defendant merely states in the NOR that this court has diversity jurisdiction because
“it is a civil action between citizens of different states and the matter in controversy exceeds the
sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs seeks compensation in excess of $100,000 [sic].”
(Dkt. 1, NOR at ¶ 3). Such an unsubstantiated assertion, untethered to any evidence, cannot
satisfy the amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). See Gaus, 980 F.2d at 567
(remanding for lack of diversity jurisdiction where defendant “offered no facts whatsoever . . . [to]

2

Defendant seeks only to invoke the court’s diversity jurisdiction. (See, generally, Dkt. 1,

NOR).
3

In relevant part, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) provides that “district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States[.]”
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

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

CV 17-5619 FMO (KSx)

Date

Title

Patrick Chraghchian v. Yaacov Metzler

August 21, 2017

overcome[ ] the strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, [and did not] satisf[y]
[defendant’s] burden of setting forth . . . the underlying facts supporting its assertion that the
amount in controversy exceeds [$75,000]”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in
original). Indeed, defendant does not point to any allegation in the Complaint that would support
that contention. (See, generally, Dkt. 1, NOR).
Given that any doubt regarding the existence of subject matter jurisdiction must be resolved
in favor of remanding the action to state court, see Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566, the court is not
persuaded, under the circumstances here, that defendant has met its burden of establishing a
basis for diversity jurisdiction.
This order is not intended for publication. Nor is it intended to be included in or
submitted to any online service such as Westlaw or Lexis.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The above-captioned action shall be remanded to the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, 111 North Hill St., Los Angeles, CA 90012, for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
2. The Clerk shall send a certified copy of this Order to the state court.
3. All pending motions are denied as moot.

00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

vdr

Page 3 of 3