Venessa Raspa v. The Hertz Corporation et al

Filing 13

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING CIVIL ACTION TO SUPERIOR COURT by Judge R. Gary Klausner: The above-entitled case is ordered REMANDED to the Superior Court for all further proceedings for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)

JS6

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

2:24-cv-03710-RGK-KS

Title

VENESSA RASPA v. THE HERTZ CORP. AND GEORGE ALLEN

Present: The Honorable

Date

May 10, 2024

R. GARY KLAUSNER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Joseph Remigio

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING CIVIL ACTION TO
SUPERIOR COURT

On May 3, 2024 Defendant The Hertz Corporation (“Hertz”) removed this action from the Los
Angeles County Superior Court to federal court on the basis of diversity of citizenship.
Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, et seq. The Ninth Circuit
has held unequivocally that the removal statute is construed strictly against removal. Ethridge v. Harbor
House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988). The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction
means that “the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles,
Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d
709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 264 F.3d
952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving the case is
properly in federal court.”).
Venessa Raspa (“Plaintiff’), a citizen of California, filed the current action, alleging state
statutory claims under FEHA, California Labor Code, and California Business and Professions Code.
Plaintiff’s Second Claim for Sexual Harassment has been asserted against both Hertz and an
individually named defendant, George Allen, who is also a citizen of California. Based on the
citizenship of both Plaintiff and Defendant Allen, there is no diversity of citizenship upon which to base
federal subject matter jurisdiction. In the Notice of Removal, Defendant argues that (1) the forum
defendant rule does not apply; and (2) Defendant Allen is a sham defendant because “Plaintiff cannot
establish that Allen’s alleged conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute harassment as a
matter of law.” (Def.’s Notice of Removal, p. 9, lines 22-23.) As defense counsel should know, (1) the
forum defendant rule is irrelevant to this matter, as Plaintiff is also a California citizen; and (2)
Plaintiff’s ability to present sufficient evidence to establish a requisite element of her claim is not the
standard for determining whether a named party is a sham defendant.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2

JS6

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

2:24-cv-03710-RGK-KS

Date

May 10, 2024

Title

VENESSA RASPA v. THE HERTZ CORP. AND GEORGE ALLEN

For the foregoing reasons, the above-entitled case is ordered REMANDED to the Superior
Court for all further proceedings for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 2

JRE/vc