Perry Hawkins v. Nestle USA, Inc.

Filing 16

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson remanding case to Riverside County Superior Court, Case number RIC1716705. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (mrgo)

JS-6

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

ED CV 17-2092 PA (KKx)

Title

Perry Hawkins v. Nestle USA, Inc., et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

October 19, 2017

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Kamilla Sali-Suleyman

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 a Notice of Removal filed by defendant Nestle USA, Inc. (“Defendant”). In
its Notice of Removal, Defendant asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over the action brought against
it by plaintiff Perry Hawkins (“Plaintiff”) based on the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332.
Federal courts are courts 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, 1675, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). A suit 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 on the party
seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Prize Frize,
Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.) Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 1999). “Federal 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).
In attempting to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, Defendant must demonstrate that there
is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. 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). “A person residing in a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not
necessarily a citizen of that state.” Id.
In support of its allegation that the Court possesses diversity jurisdiction, the Notice of Removal
alleges:

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

JS-6

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

ED CV 17-2092 PA (KKx)

Date

Title

October 19, 2017

Perry Hawkins v. Nestle USA, Inc., et al.
Plaintiff has been and is domiciled in California, in that he resides in
California with the intent to remain in California and is, therefore, a
citizen of California and the United States.

(Notice of Removal ¶ 7 (citing Compl. ¶¶ 2, 5, 10.)) However, the Complaint alleges only that Plaintiff
was a resident of California, and that he was employed by Defendant for 10 years. (See Compl. ¶¶ 2, 5,
10.) Thus, the Complaint alleges Plaintiff’s residence and place of employment only. The Complaint
does not establish Plaintiff’s intent to remain in California. Because a person’s residence is not the same
as his domicile, the Complaint’s allegations do not establish Plaintiff’s citizenship. Kanter, 265 F.3d at
857 (“A person residing in a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not necessarily a
citizen of that state.”). Therefore, the Notice of Removal does not adequately allege the citizenship of
Plaintiff, and Defendant has failed to demonstrate that complete diversity exists.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant has not met its burden of establishing the Court’s diversity
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court remands this action to Riverside County Superior Court, Case No.
RIC1716705. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2