Ricky Bejar v. Subaru of America, Inc.

Filing 17

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND 15 by Judge Cormac J. Carney. In light of the presumption against removal jurisdiction,and Subaru's apparent consent, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion. This action is hereby remanded to Ventura County Superior Court. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 16) is DENIED AS MOOT. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (iv)

JS-6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SOUTHERN DIVISION

11
12
13

RICKY BEJAR,

14

Plaintiff,

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

v.
SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., and
DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants.

)
) Case No.: SACV 19-05372-CJC(JEMx)
)
)
)
)
)
) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
) MOTION TO REMAND
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

23
24

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

25
26

On May 15, 2019, Plaintiff Ricky Bejar filed this action in Ventura County

27

Superior Court against Defendant Subaru of America, Inc. (“Subaru”). (Dkt. 1-2

28

[Complaint, hereinafter “Compl.”].) Plaintiff bought a purportedly defective 2015
-1-

1

Subaru Impreza WRX from Defendant in July 2015. (Compl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff alleges six

2

claims under California law: breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, breach

3

of the implied warranty of fitness, sale of defective merchandise without disclosing

4

defects, breach of express warranty, failure to promptly repurchase product, and failure to

5

commence repairs within a reasonable time and to complete them within thirty days. (Id.

6

¶¶ 4–43.)

7

Subaru removed the case to this Court on June 19, 2019, invoking diversity

8
9

jurisdiction. (Dkt. 1 [Notice of Removal].) On September 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed a

10

motion to remand the action to Ventura County Superior Court, arguing that Suburu has

11

not carried its burden to show removal was proper. (Dkt. 15.) For the following reasons,

12

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.1

13
14

II. DISCUSSION

15

A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to a federal district court

16
17

if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C.

18

§ 1441. The defendant removing the action to federal court bears the burden of

19

establishing that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action, and the

20

removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980

21

F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt

22

as to the right of removal in the first instance.”). A federal court may assert diversity

23

jurisdiction over cases that are between diverse parties and involve an amount in

24

controversy that exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

25
26
27
28

1

Having read and considered the papers presented by the parties, the Court finds this matter appropriate
for disposition without a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing set
for October 21, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. is hereby vacated and off calendar.
-2-

1

Principles of federalism and judicial economy require courts to “scrupulously

2

confine their [removal] jurisdiction to the precise limits which [Congress] has

3

defined.” See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 109 (1941). Indeed,

4

“[n]othing is to be more jealously guarded by a court than its jurisdiction.” See United

5

States v. Ceja-Prado, 333 F.3d 1046, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted).

6
7

Any opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to remand was due September 30, 2019.

8

Suburu has failed to file an opposition. Under the Central District of California’s Local

9

Rule 7-12, “[t]he failure to file any required document, or the failure to file it within the

10

deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion.”

11
12

In light of the presumption against removal jurisdiction, see Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566,

13

and Subaru’s apparent consent, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion. This action is

14

hereby remanded to Ventura County Superior Court.

15
16
17

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 16) is
DENIED AS MOOT.

18
19
20

DATED:

October 10, 2019
__________________________________
CORMAC J. CARNEY

21
22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-