Dante King v. Michael David Collins et al
Filing
11
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING ACTION by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. The above-captioned action shall be remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (iv)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
ED CV 21-0826 FMO (PVCx)
Title
Dante King v. TJC Transport, LLC dba Coastline Transport, et al.
Present: The Honorable
Date
June 4, 2021
Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge
Vanessa Figueroa
None
None
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter / Recorder
Tape No.
Attorney Present for Plaintiff:
Attorney Present for Defendant:
None Present
None Present
Proceedings:
(In Chambers) Order Remanding Action
On February 17, 2021, plaintiff Dante King (“plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in the San
Bernardino County Superior Court against TJC Transport, LLC dba Coastline Transport and
Michael David Collins, II (“Collins”), asserting claims related to an accident. (See Dkt. 1, Notice
of Removal [ ] (“NOR”) at ¶ 1); (id., Exh. A, Complaint). On May 10, 2021, Collins removed that
action on diversity jurisdiction grounds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (See Dkt. 1, NOR at p.
1). Having reviewed the pleadings, the court hereby remands this action to state court for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized
by Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114
S.Ct. 1673, 1675 (1994). The courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears
affirmatively from the record. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n. 3, 126
S.Ct. 1854, 1861 n. 3 (2006). Federal courts have a duty to examine jurisdiction sua sponte
before proceeding to the merits of a case, see Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574,
583, 119 S.Ct. 1563, 1569 (1999), “even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh
v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 1244 (2006).
“Under the plain terms of § 1441(a), in order properly to remove [an] action pursuant to that
provision, [the removing defendant] must demonstrate that original subject-matter jurisdiction lies
in the federal courts.” Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 33, 123 S.Ct. 366, 370
(2002); Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006) (per curiam)
(noting the “longstanding, near-canonical rule that the burden on removal rests with the removing
defendant”); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (“The strong presumption
against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that
removal is proper.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). If there is any doubt regarding the
existence of subject matter jurisdiction, the court must resolve those doubts in favor of remanding
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
ED CV 21-0826 FMO (PVCx)
Date
Title
Dante King v. TJC Transport, LLC dba Coastline Transport, et al.
June 4, 2021
the action to state court.1 See Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if
there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”).
The court’s review of the NOR and the attached Complaint makes clear that the court does
not have subject matter jurisdiction over the instant matter. In other words, plaintiff could not have
originally brought this action in federal court, as plaintiff does not competently allege facts
supplying diversity jurisdiction.2 Therefore, removal was improper. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a);
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 2429 (1987) (“Only state-court
actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by
the defendant.”).
Collins bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount
in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115,
1117 (9th Cir. 2004); Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir.
2003) (per curiam) (“Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is
in controversy, the removing party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold. Where doubt regarding the right to
removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court.”) (footnote omitted). Here, there is no
basis for diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy does not appear to exceed the
diversity jurisdiction threshold of $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).3
As an initial matter, the amount of damages plaintiff seeks cannot be determined from the
Complaint, as the Complaint does not set forth a specific amount. (See, generally, Dkt. 1, Exh.
A, Complaint). Moreover, Collins does not set forth any basis for finding that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000, (see, generally, Dkt. 1, NOR), and instead merely cites to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1446(c). (See id. at ¶ 11). This cannot satisfy the amount in controversy requirement of 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a). See, e.g., Gaus, 980 F.2d at 567 (remanding for lack of diversity jurisdiction
where defendant “offered no facts whatsoever . . . . [to] overcome[] the strong presumption against
removal jurisdiction, [and did not] satisf[y defendant’s] burden of setting forth . . . the underlying
facts supporting its assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds $[75],000”) (internal
1
An “antiremoval presumption” does not exist in cases removed pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v.
Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89, 135 S.Ct. 547, 554 (2014).
2
Collins seeks only to invoke the court’s diversity jurisdiction. (See, generally, Dkt. 1,
NOR).
3
In relevant part, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) provides that a district court has diversity jurisdiction
“where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, . . . and is between . . .
citizens of different States” or “citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state[.]” 28
U.S.C. §§ 1332(a)(1)-(2).
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
ED CV 21-0826 FMO (PVCx)
Date
Title
Dante King v. TJC Transport, LLC dba Coastline Transport, et al.
June 4, 2021
quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original).
In sum, given that any doubt regarding the existence of subject matter jurisdiction must be
resolved in favor of remanding the action, see Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566, the court is not persuaded,
under the circumstances here, that Collins has met his burden of proving by a preponderance of
the evidence that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold. See Matheson,
319 F.3d at 1090 (“Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is
in controversy, the removing party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold. Where doubt regarding the right to
removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court.”) (footnote omitted); Valdez, 372 F.3d
at 1117.
This order is not intended for publication. Nor is it intended to be included in or
submitted to any online service such as Westlaw or Lexis.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The above-captioned action shall be remanded to the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Bernardino, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1447(c).
2. The Clerk shall send a certified copy of this Order to the state court.
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
vdr
Page 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?