Luis Ortiz v. Exel Inc.

Filing 15

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson. 2005). Accordingly, the Court remands this action to San Bernadino County Superior Court, case number CIV DS1511949, for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). IT IS SO ORDERED. Case remanded to Superior Court of California, San Bernardino County, at Justice Center; case number CIVDS1511949. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (mailed 10/21/15) (lom)

JS6

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

CV 15-1959 PA (DTBx)

Title

Luis Ortiz v. Exel Inc.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

October 21, 2015

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Stephen Montes Kerr

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER

Before the Court is the Notice of Removal filed by defendant Exel Inc. (“Defendant”).
Defendant asserts that federal jurisdiction exists on the basis of diversity of citizenship.
Federal courts are 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, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). Suits 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 upon the party seeking
removal.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988).
Subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship requires all plaintiffs to have
different citizenship from all defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger,
437 U.S. 365, 373, 98 S. Ct. 2396, 2402, 57 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1978). One of the requirements for diversity
jurisdiction is that the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a). When an action has been removed, and the amount in controversy is in doubt, there is
a “strong presumption” that plaintiff has not claimed an amount sufficient to confer jurisdiction. Gaus
v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co.,
303 U.S. 283, 288-90, 58 S. Ct. 586, 590-91, 92 L. Ed. 845 (1938)). “The removal statute is ‘strictly
construed against removal jurisdiction and any doubt must be resolved in favor of remand.’” Hofler v.
Aetna US Healthcare of Cal., Inc., 296 F.3d 764, 767 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Ethridge v. Harbor House
Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988)), abrogated on other grounds by Martin v. Franklin Capital
Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 126 S. Ct. 704, 163 L. Ed. 2d 547 (2005).
Here, the Complaint is silent as to the amount of damages plaintiff seeks. Therefore, it was
incumbent on the removing defendant to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, facts demonstrating
that the amount in controversy is satisfied. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404
(9th Cir. 1996). Defendant has not made a sufficient attempt to meet this burden. Here, despite
admitting that “Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of . . . damages” the Notice of
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.

CV 15-1959 PA (DTBx)

Title

Date

October 21, 2015

Luis Ortiz v. Exel Inc.

Removal asserts that “[i]t is facially apparent from the Complaint that the claims asserted by Plaintiff
exceed $75,000 . . . .” This bald conclusion that the amount in controversy has been met is wholly
inadequate to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116-17
(9th Cir. 2004). Although Defendant attempted to use evidence of jury verdicts in other cases to meet
this burden, its effort to do so is insufficient as a matter of law because Defendant has failed to show
how the claims in this case are factually similar to the cases it cites in which verdicts over $75,000 were
rendered. See Conrad Assocs. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 994 F. Supp. 1196, 1201 (N.D. Cal.
1998).
Moreover, Defendant has failed to sufficiently establish plaintiff’s citizenship. Federal diversity
jurisdiction requires that all parties to the action be citizens of different states. See 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). Although the
Notice of Removal alleges that plaintiff is a California citizen, the only support for that assertion is
through citation to the Complaint. The Complaint alleges only that plaintiff is a resident of California.
(Compl. ¶ 1.) In seeking to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction, Defendant bears the burden of proving that
jurisdiction exists. Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Defendant has failed to meet
this burden.
Because neither the “four corners” of the Complaint nor the Notice of Removal contain
sufficient allegations concerning the amount in controversy or the citizenship of plaintiff, Defendant has
not met its burden to establish this Court’s jurisdiction. See Harris v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 425 F.3d
689, 694 (2005). Accordingly, the Court remands this action to San Bernadino County Superior Court,
case number CIV DS1511949, for lack of federal 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