Priscilla Dinh v Victoria's Secret

Filing 15

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Jesus G. Bernal: Order REMANDING Case to State Court. Accordingly, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case and REMANDS the case to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino 13 . Remanding case to San Bernardino Superior Court, Case number CIVDS1814580. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (twdb)

JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

EDCV 18-1891 JGB (KKx)

Date October 4, 2019

Title Priscilla Dinh v Victoria's Secret
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 REMANDING Case to State Court.

On June 12, 2018, Plaintiff Priscilla Dinh filed this action in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Bernardino. (“Complaint,” Dkt. No. 1-1, Exhibit A.) The
Complaint brings causes of action for: (1) premises liability and (2) general negligence. (See id.)
On September 5, 2018, Defendant Victoria’s Secret removed the case to this Court. (“Notice of
Removal,” Dkt. No. 1.) The Notice of Removal states that the parties are diverse: Plaintiff is a
citizen of California and Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place
of business in Ohio. (Id. ¶¶ 6,7.) The Notice of Removal also states the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000. (Id. ¶ 13.) On September 20, 2019, the Parties filed a stipulation clarifying that
the amount in controversy is less than $75,000. (“Joint Stipulation,” Dkt. No. 13.)
“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). As such, federal
courts only have original jurisdiction over civil actions in which a federal question exists or in
which complete diversity of citizenship between the parties exists and the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Because they have limited jurisdiction, federal
courts “have an independent obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the scope of their
jurisdiction, and therefore they must raise and decide jurisdictional questions that the parties
either overlook or elect not to press.” Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 US 428,
434 (2011).
At the time of removal, the requirements for diversity jurisdiction were met—the parties
are diverse and an amount in controversy appeared to be greater than $75,000. (See Notice of
Page 1 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk iv

Removal.) However, with the filing of the Joint Stipulation indicating that the amount in
controversy is $75,000, that is no longer the case. (See Joint Stipulation.) Additionally, because
Plaintiff brings only state law claims, there is no federal question at issue. (See Complaint.)
Accordingly, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case and
REMANDS the case to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk iv