Oscar Urbano v. SMG Holdings, Inc. et al

Filing 10

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Margaret M. Morrow. The court orders defendant to show cause in writing on or before April 13, 2015 why this action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If defendant responds to this order to show cause, plaintiff may file a reply on or before April 20, 2015. Should defendant fail to respond to this order to show cause by April 13, 2015, the court will remand the case to state court forthwith. (jloz)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No.

Title

CV 15-00603 MMM (MRWx)

Date

April 6, 2015

Oscar Urbano v. SMG Holdings, Inc., et al

Present: The Honorable

MARGARET M. MORROW

ANEL HUERTA

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

Order to Show Cause Why Case Should Not Be Remanded for Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The right to remove a case to federal court is entirely a creature of statute. See Libhart v. Santa
Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979). The removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, allows
defendants to remove when a case originally filed in state court involves a federal question or is between
citizens of different states and involves an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1441(a), (b). Only state court actions that could originally have been filed in federal court can be
removed. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (“Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil
action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction,
may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the
district and division embracing the place where such action is pending”); see Caterpillar, Inc. v.
Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir.
1988).
The Ninth Circuit “strictly construe[s] the removal statute against removal jurisdiction,” and
“[f]ederal 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) (citing Boggs v. Lewis, 863 F.2d 662,
663 (9th Cir. 1988), Takeda v. Northwestern Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 818 (9th Cir. 1985), and
Libhart, 592 F.2d at 1064). “The ‘strong presumption’ against removal jurisdiction means that the
defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Id. (citing Nishimoto v.
Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1990), and Emrich v. Touche Ross &
Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988)).
In the present case, the pleadings do not appear to establish that the court has subject matter

jurisdiction to hear the case. Specifically, the court notes the following deficiencies:
The pleadings do not adequately show that the court has federal question jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
X

The pleadings do not adequately show that the court has diversity jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1332. Specifically, the pleadings fail to show that:

X

The amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000 (28 U.S.C. §
1332(d)(2))..

Accordingly, the court orders defendant to show cause in writing on or before April 13, 2015 why
this action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If defendant responds to this
order to show cause, plaintiff may file a reply on or before April 20, 2015. Should defendant fail to
respond to this order to show cause by April 13, 2015, the court will remand the case to state court
forthwith.

CV-90 (12/02)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk AH