Karen N. Bachman v. Medtronic, Inc. et al

Filing 9

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson remanding case to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case number BC698240. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (mrgo)

JS-6

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

CV 18-3463 PA (AGRx)

Title

Karen N. Bachman v. Medtronic, Inc. et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

April 26, 2018

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Kamilla Sali-Suleyman

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendant:

None

None

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER

Before the Court is a Notice of Removal filed by defendant Medtronic, Inc. (“Defendant”) on
April 25, 2018. (Docket No. 1.) Defendant asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over the action
brought against it by plaintiff Karen N. Bachman (“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). 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: “Plaintiff’s Complaint establishes that ‘at all times pertinent to
this law suit [she] was a resident of the County of Ventura, State of California.’ (Compl. ¶ 1.) As

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 18-3463 PA (AGRx)

Date

Title

April 26, 2018

Karen N. Bachman v. Medtronic, Inc. et al.

Plaintiff resides in the state of California, she is therefore a citizen of California for purposes of the
instant jurisdictional analysis.” (Notice of Removal ¶ 13; see Compl. ¶ 1, Docket No. 1-2.) As
Defendant’s own quotation demonstrates, the complaint establishes only Plaintiff’s residence, not her
state of domicile or citizenship. Defendant offers no other support for its allegation of Plaintiff’s
citizenship. Because an individual is not necessarily domiciled where he or she resides, Defendant fails
to establish Plaintiff’s citizenship. “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.”). As
a result, Defendant’s allegations related to Plaintiff’s citizenship are insufficient to invoke this Court’s
diversity jurisdiction.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant has failed to satisfy its burden of showing that diversity
jurisdiction exists over this action. Accordingly, this action is hereby remanded to Los Angeles County
Superior Court, Case No. BC698240, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2