Joseph Heslip v. Staples Contract and Commercial, Inc. et al

Filing 10

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson remanding case to San Bernardino County Superior Court, Case number CIVDS1721900. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (mrgo)

JS-6

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

ED CV 17-2498 PA (KKx)

Title

Joseph Heslip v. Staples, Inc., et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

December 18, 2017

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Renee Fisher

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 on December 14, 2017, by defendant Staples
Contract and Commercial, Inc., erroneously sued as Staples, Inc. (Docket No. 1.) Defendant asserts that
the Court has jurisdiction over this action, brought by plaintiff Joseph Heslip (“Plaintiff”), based on
diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over
those 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, 395 (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).
To invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, Defendant must prove that there is complete
diversity of citizenship between the parties and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28
U.S.C. § 1332. A natural person must be a citizen of the United States and be domiciled in a state to
establish “state citizenship” for diversity purposes. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088,
1090 (9th Cir. 1983). A person is domiciled in the place he resides with the intent to remain or to which
he intends 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.
Here, in an effort to establish Plaintiff’s citizenship, the Notice of Removal asserts that:
Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that, at all relevant times, he was a

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 17-2498 PA (KKx)

Date

Title

December 18, 2017

Joseph Heslip v. Staples, Inc., et al.
resident of California. Compl. ¶ 2. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s last known
address on file with Defendant is located in California. Santerre Decl. ¶ 3.
During his employment with Defendant, which spanned from September
1999 through October 2016, Plaintiff lived, worked, and was physically
present in California, thus demonstrating an intent to remain in California
by residing and working in California for over 17 years. Id. Accordingly,
Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California for purposes of analyzing
diversity jurisdiction.

(Notice of Removal ¶ 11.) While such allegations may suggest that Plaintiff resides in California, an
individual is not necessarily domiciled where he resides. Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857. “Absent unusual
circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the
actual citizenship of the relevant parties.” Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857. In this case, Defendant has not
affirmatively alleged Plaintiff’s actual citizenship. Thus, Defendant has not demonstrated that complete
diversity exists.
As a result Defendant has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate the Court’s diversity
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court remands this action to San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No.
CIVDS1721900. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2