Paul Vazquez et al v. Rexam Inc et al

Filing 11

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT by Judge John F. Walter. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. This action is REMANDED to Los Angeles Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (iv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No.

CV 18-5239-JFW(Ex)

Title:

Paul Vazquez, et al. al -v- Rexam, Inc., et al.

Date: July 10, 2018

PRESENT:
HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Shannon Reilly
Courtroom Deputy

None Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:
None
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES
SUPERIOR COURT

On November 28, 2016, Plaintiffs Paul Vazquez and Martha Vazquez (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Defendant Rexam Beverage Can Company (erroneously
sued and named as Rexam, Inc., d/b/a Rexam Beverage Can Company). On June 13, 2018,
Defendant filed a Notice of Removal of Action to Federal Court (“Notice of Removal”), alleging that
this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over
matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See Bender v. Williamsport Area School
District, 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). “Because of the Congressional purpose to restrict the
jurisdiction of the federal courts on removal, the statute is strictly construed, and federal jurisdiction
must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Duncan v.
Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations and quotations omitted). There is a strong
presumption that the Court is without jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears. See
Fifty Associates v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 446 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir.
1990). As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, Defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that
removal is proper. See, e.g., Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992); Emrich v. Touche
Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988).
Diversity jurisdiction founded under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) requires that (1) all plaintiffs be of
different citizenship than all defendants, and (2) the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. See
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Defendant contends that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and
alleges in conclusory fashion that “the Complaint itself is sufficient evidence to establish that it is
more likely than not that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount of $75,000.”
Notice of Removal, ¶ 2. However, the Complaint is devoid of any facts from which the Court can
determine that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Where, as in this case, it is unclear
Page 1 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr

from the face of the complaint whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, “the removing
defendant bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount
in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Urbino v. Orkin Servs. of Cal., Inc., 726 F.3d
1118, 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2013) (quotation marks and citations omitted). The amount in controversy
may include “damages (compensatory, punitive, or otherwise) and the cost of complying with an
injunction, as well as attorneys' fees awarded under fee shifting statutes.” Gonzales v. CarMax
Auto Superstores, LLC, 840 F.3d 644, 648–49 (9th Cir. 2016). However, “[c]onclusory allegations
as to the amount in controversy are insufficient.” Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 878 F.3d
770, 774 (9th Cir. 2017). Therefore, Defendant’s conclusory allegation regarding the amount in
controversy is insufficient.
For all the foregoing reasons, this action is REMANDED to Los Angeles Superior Court for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr