Crystal R. Moore v. CVS Health Corporation et al

Filing 16

MINUTE Order (1) DENYING Plaintiff Crystal Moores Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 11 ); and (2) VACATING the hearing on July 24, 2017 (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Jesus G. Bernal. (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS.) In sum, the Court concludes it has subject matter jurisdiction under diversity jurisdiction but not under federal question jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion to Remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (iva)

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

EDCV 17-888 JGB (DTBx)

Date July 14, 2017

Title Crystal Moore v. CVS Health Corporation, et al.
Present: The Honorable

JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MAYNOR GALVEZ

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

Order (1) DENYING Plaintiff Crystal Moore’s Motion to Remand (Dkt.
No. 11.); and (2) VACATING the hearing on July 24, 2017 (IN
CHAMBERS)

Before the Court is a Motion to Remand by Plaintiff Crystal Moore (“Plaintiff”) (Dkt.
No. 11.) The Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without a hearing. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. After consideration of the papers filed in support of, and in opposition to
the motion, the Court DENIES the motion.
I. BACKGROUND
On February 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants CVS Health
Corporation, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Garfield Beach CVS, LLC No. 9698, and Does 1-60
(collectively “Defendants”) in the Superior Court of the State of California County of San
Bernardino. (“Complaint,” Dkt. No. 1-1.) The Complaint alleged a single cause of action for
negligence. (Id.) Defendants removed the action to this Court on May 8, 2017. (Dkt. No. 1.)
Plaintiff moved to remand the case on June 5, 2017. (“Motion,” Dkt. No. 11.) Defendant
opposed the Motion on June 27, 2017. (“Opposition,” Dkt. No. 12.) Plaintiff replied on July 6,
2017. (“Reply,” Dkt. No. 13.)

Page 1 of 5

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized
by the Constitution and statute.” Gunn v. Minton, 133 S. Ct. 1059, 1064 (2013) (internal
citations omitted). As such, federal courts only have original jurisdiction over civil actions in
which a federal question exists (federal question jurisdiction) or where there is complete diversity
of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 (diversity
jurisdiction). 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.
“The right of removal is entirely a creature of statute and a suit commenced in a state
court must remain there until cause is shown for its transfer under some act of Congress.”
Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002) (internal citations and quotation
marks omitted). Where Congress has acted to create a right of removal, those statutes are strictly
construed against removal jurisdiction. Id.; Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 667 (9th
Cir. 2012). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), “[a] suit filed in state court may be removed to
federal court if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the suit.” Yad
Abraham, LLC v. Disruptive Tech, Ltd., No. CV 17-4771 PA (AFMx), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
103760 (C.D. Cal. July 3, 2017). “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The
strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden
of establishing that removal is proper.” Kotulski v. FCA US LLC, No. 17-CV-0527-AJB-BGS,
2017 W.L 2705429 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 23, 2017) (quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564,
566 (9th Cir. 1992).
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff challenges Defendants’ removal, contending the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction in this matter because neither diversity jurisdiction nor federal question jurisdiction
exist. (Mot. at 3-5.) As such, Plaintiff asserts the case must be remanded to the Superior Court
for the County of San Bernardino. (Id. at 3.)
A. Federal Question Jurisdiction
“In determining federal question jurisdiction, the well-pleaded complaint rule ‘provides
that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the
plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.’” Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d at 1039, 1042
(9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Fisher v. NOS Commc’ns (In re NOS Commc’ns), 495 F.3d 1052, 1057
(9th Cir. 2007)). To establish federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff must show through its
“‘well-pleaded complaint . . . . that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s
right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.’”
Proctor v. Vishay Intertech. Inc., 584 F.3d 1208, 1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Empire
Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 689–90 (2006)).

Page 2 of 5

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint clearly states that it is “properly pleaded” and is “purely a
state-law cause of action” not intending to invoke federal question jurisdiction under § 1331.
(Reply at 5.) The Court agrees the Complaint asserts a single cause of action for negligence —a
state law claim. Because the claim arises under state law and does not require resolution of
federal law, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over this case.
B. Diversity Jurisdiction
“Under the plain terms of § 1441(a), in order to properly remove [an] action . . . .
[defendant] must demonstrate that original subject-matter jurisdiction lies in the federal
courts.” Syngenta Crop Prot., 537 U.S. at 33. Here, Defendants purport to invoke the Court’s
diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Under § 1332(a), “[t]he district courts . . .
have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different
states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In any case where subject matter jurisdiction is based on diversity,
there must be complete diversity, i.e., all plaintiffs must have citizenship different than all
defendants. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806); Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68
n. 3, (1996).
Generally, the amount in controversy claimed by a plaintiff in good faith will be
determinative of the jurisdictional amount, unless it appears to a legal certainty that the value of
the claim is less than $75,000. St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 28889, (1938). When the complaint does not demand an exact amount, the amount in controversy
includes the amount of damages in dispute, as well as attorney’s fees, if authorized by statute or
contract. See Kroske v. US Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2005). If the amount in
controversy is not easily ascertainable, “the removing defendant bears the burden of proving by a
preponderance of evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $[75],000.” Singer v. State
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 376 (9th Cir. 1997). However, “[t]he district court may
consider whether it is facially apparent from the complaint that the jurisdictional amount is in
controversy. . . . [or] may require parties to submit summary-judgment-type evidence relevant to
the amount in controversy at the time of removal.” (Id. at 377) (internal citations and quotation
marks omitted).
Plaintiff does not assert an amount in controversy in her Complaint. (See generally,
Compl.) Neither does Plaintiff address Defendant’s argument that the jurisdictional threshold is
met. (Opp’n at 2.) Therefore, in order to ascertain whether the amount in controversy
requirement has been met, the Court looks to the allegations in the Complaint and the parties’
respective contentions on the matter. Here, Plaintiff seeks damages for both mental and physical
pain resulting from emergency care and treatment, and multiple hospital stays after her initial
diagnosis. (Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that such damages resulted from serious heart issues,
abnormal glucose levels, and respiratory problems, caused by Defendant’s negligence. (Id.)
Plaintiff also seeks damages for future treatments and expenses she will allegedly incur, the “cost
of suit,” and any relief a “[c]ourt may deem just and proper.” (Compl. at 4.) Therefore, due to
the severity of the alleged injuries and damages sought —including attorney’s fees, the Court
Page 3 of 5

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

finds it reasonably apparent that Plaintiff’s prayer for relief satisfies the requirement under the
provisions of §1332(a).
With respect to the diversity of citizenship requirement, Plaintiff contends complete
diversity is lacking because both parties are citizens of California. (Mot. at 3, 4.) It is well
established that an individual is a citizen of the state in which he or she is domiciled. See Gilbert
v. David, 235 U.S. 561, 569 (1915) (holding a person is a citizen of the state in which she has her
domicile, i.e., a permanent home where she intends to remain or to which she intends to
return); Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A person’s domicile
is her permanent home, where she resides with the intention to remain or to which she intends to
return.”). The citizenship of a corporation is both the place of incorporation and its
principle place of business. 28 U.S.C. §1332(c)(1). For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a
limited liability corporation is a citizen of all states where its members are citizens. Johnson v.
Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006).
Plaintiff asserts Defendant Garfield Beach CVS, LLC is a citizen of California, and thus
the parties lack complete diversity as required under §1332(a). (Mot. at 3.) Plaintiff posits that a
limited liability corporation (“LLC,”) like Garfield Beach CVS, is a “business organization that
shares characteristics of both corporations and partnerships,” making it a “legal entity held
separate and apart from the assets of its members.” (Reply at 2.) To support this contention,
Plaintiff cites Carden v. Arkona Assoc.’s, interpreting the holding as leaving the question of LLC
citizenship as it relates to diversity jurisdiction unresolved. (Reply at 2 (citing 494 U.S. 185, 192,
(1990).) However, Plaintiff’s interpretation of Carden as to diversity jurisdiction under §1332(c)
is misplaced.
In Carden, the Supreme Court held that for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction,
citizenship reflects that of all the members or the several persons composing an association. 494
U.S. 185, 196 (internal citations omitted). While in Carden, the Supreme Court did not
specifically state that LLCs were encompassed in the meaning of such associations, the Ninth
Circuit has held that LLCs also reflect the citizenship of the states where its owners are citizens.
See id; see also Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899 (collecting cases from other districts addressing the
issue of whether or not LLCs hold separate citizenship from their owners for the purposes of
diversity jurisdiction). Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit clearly outlined that treating LLCs as
such is in line with the Supreme Court reasoning in Carden. Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899 (stating
“[t]his treatment accords with the Supreme Court’s consistent refusal to extend the corporate
citizenship rule to non-corporate entities, including those that share some of the characteristics of
corporations. . . . an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.”)
(citing Carden, 494 U.S. at 189). As such, Plaintiff’s interpretation of the provisions required
under §1332(c) as they apply to LLCs runs contrary to binding precedent.
Here, there is no dispute that Defendants are organized in the state of Rhode Island, and
are thus citizens of Rhode Island pursuant to § 1332(c)(1). (Dkt. No. 1-6.) The Notice of
Removal along with the supplemental documents show Defendants CVS Pharmacy, Inc., and
CVS Health Corporation are organized under the laws of the state of Rhode Island with their
Page 4 of 5

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

principal place of business in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. (Id; Mot. at 11-1.) Those documents
further show, that Defendant Garfield Beach CVS is owned by CVS Pharmacy, Inc., and CVS
Health Corporation. (Id.) While Plaintiff correctly states that Defendant Garfield Beach CVS is
an LLC located in La Habra California, its citizenship reflects that of its owners, Defendants CVS
Pharmacy, Inc., and CVS Health Corporation. Therefore, complete diversity of citizenship
exists since all Defendants are citizens of Rhode Island and Plaintiff is a citizen of California. As
such, the Court concludes it has subject matter jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to
§1332(c)(1).
In sum, the Court concludes it has subject matter jurisdiction under diversity jurisdiction
but not under federal question jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion to
Remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 5 of 5

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG