Carlos Castellon v. Penn-Ridge Transportation Inc et al

Filing 31

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order GRANTING Motion to Remand and DECLINING to Address Motion to Dismiss by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: The Court GRANTS the Motion to Remand. Given the Court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court DECLINES to address the Motion to Dismiss. See document for further information. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (lwag)

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

EDCV 16-0085 AG (DTBx)

Title

CARLOS CASTELLON v. PENN-RIDGE TRANSPORTATION

Present: The Honorable

March 8, 2016

ANDREW J. GUILFORD

Lisa Bredahl
Deputy Clerk
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Proceedings:

Date

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

[IN CHAMBERS] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
REMAND AND DECLINING TO ADDRESS MOTION TO
DISMISS

On June 22, 2015, Plaintiff Carlos Castellon filed this putative class action against Defendant
Penn-Ridge Transportation, Inc. in San Bernardino Superior Court. (See Not. of Removal,
Castellon v. Penn-Ridge Transportation, SACV 15-1966 AG (DTBx), Dkt. No. 1.) Penn-Ridge
removed the case to federal court under diversity jurisdiction. (Id.) The Court then granted
Castellon’s motion to remand based on Penn-Ridge’s failure to show that the case presented
a sufficient amount in controversy to qualify for diversity jurisdiction. (See Minute Order,
Castellon v. Penn-Ridge Transportation, SACV 15-1966 AG (DTBx), Dkt. No. 23.)
Penn-Ridge is back. Armed with Castellon’s deposition, Penn-Ridge asserts that it can now
show that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied. (See Not. of Removal, Dkt. No.
1.) Castellon is testing that assertion through another motion to remand (“Motion to
Remand”). (See Not. of Mot. and Mot. to Remand, Dkt. No. 21.) For its part, Penn-Ridge
has moved to dismiss the case on a variety of grounds, or in the alternative to strike parts of
the complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”). (See Am. Not. of Mot. and Mot. to Dismiss, Dkt. No.
17.)
The Court GRANTS the Motion to Remand. Given the Court’s lack of subject matter
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 4

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

EDCV 16-0085 AG (DTBx)

Date

March 8, 2016

Title

CARLOS CASTELLON v. PENN-RIDGE TRANSPORTATION

jurisdiction, the Court DECLINES to address the Motion to Dismiss.
1. MOTION TO REMAND
The Constitution limits the power of federal courts to rule. See U.S. Const. art.
III, § 2. The courts police their exercise of power themselves. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3)(“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). This self-enforced check is
crucial in a nation governed by the rule of law. So courts take this sacred duty
seriously and guard their limited jurisdiction jealously. Ghazaryan v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., 42 F. Supp. 3d 1341, 1342 (C. D. Cal. 2014).
Accordingly, courts assume that cases are outside of their power to rule, and
require parties to prove otherwise. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511
U.S. 375, 377 (1994).
Abramson v. Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc., — F. Supp. 3d —, No. SACV 15-0135 AG
(JCGx), 2016 WL 105889, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2016).
These general principles are particularly powerful when discussing a federal court’s
jurisdiction over a case removed from state court. “To protect the jurisdiction of state courts,
removal jurisdiction should be strictly construed in favor of remand.” Padilla v. AT&T Corp.,
697 F. Supp. 2d 1156, 1158 (C.D. Cal. 2009). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is
any doubt as to the right of removal.” Id. In conducting this analysis, “the court construes all
factual allegations in favor of the party seeking the remand.” One Sylvan Rd. N. Assocs. v. Lark
Int’l, Ltd., 889 F. Supp. 60, 62 (D. Conn. 1995).
Against this backdrop, it makes sense that defendants rarely get two shots at removal.
Indeed, “[s]uccessive removals are . . . improper ‘[a]bsent a showing that the posture of the
case has so changed that it is substantially a new case.’” Leon v. Gordon Trucking, Inc., 76 F.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 4

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

EDCV 16-0085 AG (DTBx)

Date

March 8, 2016

Title

CARLOS CASTELLON v. PENN-RIDGE TRANSPORTATION

Supp. 3d 1055, 1063 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (second alteration in original) (quoting One Sylvan Rd.,
889 F. Supp. 60).
Penn-Ridge doesn’t try to argue that it’s removing a case that is “substantially a new case”
when compared to the case it previously tried to remove. That’s for good reason: the two
cases appear effectively identical. Remand is thus appropriate.
Despite its counsel’s excellent advocacy at oral argument, Penn-Ridge hasn’t provided
sufficient binding authority or otherwise adequately demonstrated that removal is
appropriate under these circumstances. And despite contrary argument, nothing this Court
previously stated supports federal jurisdiction on these facts. Ruling otherwise here would
promote multiple motions from delay-seeking defendants, unjustly denying plaintiffs “ the
just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of their cases. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
The Court GRANTS the Motion to Remand.
2. MOTION TO DISMISS
Among other things, in its Motion to Dismiss Penn-Ridge argues that two’s a crowd, but
three’s company. The case is in part about whether Castellon was misclassified as an
independent contractor rather than an employee. Penn-Ridge says it didn’t directly employ
Castellon, but instead contracted with various carriers, who in turn directly employed drivers
like Castellon. For example, Penn-Ridge says a carrier contractor named Jireh figuratively sat
between Penn-Ridge and Castellon. Penn-Ridge says that Jireh (and, depending on the
contours of the class, perhaps other carrier contractors) must be joined to the case. The
parties appear to agree that Jireh is a California citizen, and that its joinder to the case would
destroy complete diversity, and in turn, this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
Because the Court is remanding the case, the Court cannot resolve the Motion to Dismiss.
But the Court notes that had it done so, the end result would also likely have been this case
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 3 of 4

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

EDCV 16-0085 AG (DTBx)

Date

March 8, 2016

Title

CARLOS CASTELLON v. PENN-RIDGE TRANSPORTATION

ending up in state court.
The Court DECLINES to address the Motion to Dismiss.
3. DISPOSITION
The Court GRANTS the Motion to Remand. Given the Court’s lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, the Court DECLINES to address the Motion to Dismiss.
:
Initials of Preparer

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 4 of 4

lmb

0