Samar Ashouri v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc et al

Filing 7

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson remanding case to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case number VC066594. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (mrgo)

JS-6

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

CV 17-7960 PA (GJSx)

Title

Samar Ashouri v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

November 28, 2017

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Kamilla Sali-Suleyman

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 Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
(“Defendant”). (Docket No. 1) In its Notice of Removal, Defendant asserts that this Court has
jurisdiction over the action brought against it by plaintiff Samar Ashouri (“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).
To invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, Defendant must demonstrate 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.
In support of its allegation that the Court possesses diversity jurisdiction, the Notice of Removal
alleges: “Plaintiff is a citizen of California. Samar Ashouri is an individual residing in California.”
(Notice of Removal ¶ 6 (citing Compl. ¶ 1, Notice of Removal Ex. A).) However, because a person’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 17-7960 PA (GJSx)

Date

Title

November 28, 2017

Samar Ashouri v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.

residence is not the same as his domicile, the Complaint’s allegations do not establish Plaintiff’s
citizenship. 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.”). “Absent unusual circumstances, a party
seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the
relevant parties.” Id. Here, the Notice of Removal does not adequately allege the citizenship of
Plaintiff, and Defendant has failed to demonstrate that complete diversity exists.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant has not met its burden to establish the Court’s diversity
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court remands this action to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case
No. VC066594. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2