Badyal et al v. Bosch Packaging Technology, Inc. et al

Filing 10

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 2/25/2011. This case is REMANDED to Superior Court of the State of California, County of Yolo. Clerk order to close this case - matter is TERMINATED. [cc: Yolo Superior Court] (Marciel, M) Modified on 2/25/2011 (Marciel, M).

-GGH Badyal et al v. Bosch Packaging Technology, Inc. et al

Doc. 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Plaintiffs, 12 v. 13 14 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ----oo0oo---Through this personal injury action, Kiranjeet and Dilawar Badyal ("Plaintiffs") seek redress in connection with the explosion of an autoclave sterilizer allegedly designed, manufactured, and sold by Robert Bosch Packaging Technology, Inc. ("RBPT"); SBM Schoeller-Bleckman Medizintechnik ("SBM"); and Kuhlman Technologies, Inc. ("Kuhlman"). action in Yolo County Superior Court. Plaintiffs filed this BOSCH PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY, INC.; SBM SCHOELLER-BLECKMAN MEDIZINTECHNIK; KUHLMAN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, MEMORANDUM and ORDER KIRANJEET BADYAL and DILAWAR BADYAL, No. 2:11-cv-00349-MCE-GGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On February 7, 2011, RBPT

removed to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. However, Defendant RBPT has not alleged sufficient facts to establish complete diversity. 1

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

It is fundamental that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Vacek v. United States Postal Serv., 447 F.3d Regardless of whether the issue is

1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2006).

raised by the parties, a district court has a duty to consider the basis of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte. United

Investors Life Ins. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966-67 (9th Cir. 2004). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). There is a

"strong presumption" against removal jurisdiction, and the defendant bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).

As a result, defendants must affirmatively allege the basis of diversity jurisdiction in the notice of removal. Kanter v.

Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir. 2001). Diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) requires complete diversity of citizenship between the parties opposed in interest. (9th Cir. 2004). domicile. Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1181

Individuals are citizens of their state of

Munoz v. Small Business Administration, 644 F.2d 1361, A corporation is a citizen of its state(s) 28 U.S.C.

1365 (9th Cir. 1981).

of incorporation and its principal place of business. § 1332(c)(1).

A party must affirmatively allege both a

corporation's state of incorporation and principle place of business to establish diversity. Fifty Associates v. Prudential

Ins. Co. of America, 446 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1970). /// /// /// /// 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

A defendant who is not properly joined and served in state court is not required to consent to removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, but is still relevant to determining diversity of citizenship. Preaseau v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 591 F.2d 74, 78 (9th Cir. 1979). In its Notice of Removal, RBPT properly alleges that it is a citizen of Minnesota, Kiranjeet Badyal is a citizen of California, and Kuhlman is a citizen of Washington. Removal 1-2.) (Notice of

However, after noting that Plaintiffs' First

Amended Complaint did not provide Dilawar Badyal's citizenship or residence, RBPT states only that "[p]resumably Dilawar is the husband of Kiranjeet and a citizen of California as well."1 at 2 n.1.) (Id.

Further, RBPT alleges only that SBM is a "company (Id. at 3.) Because RBPT has not

based in Austria."

affirmatively alleged the citizenship of Plaintiff Dilawar Badyal and Defendant SBM, it has not met its burden to establish subject matter jurisdiction. See Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857-58 (upholding

remand where the notice of removal stated only that plaintiffs were "residents" of California). remanded to state court. /// RBPT contends that regardless of Dilawar's citizenship, complete diversity exists because none of the parties properly joined and served as defendants are citizens of the state where the action was brought. (Notice of Removal 2 n.1.) This contention reflects an improper conflation of removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). To remove a diversity action pursuant to § 1441, no defendant who has been properly joined and served can be a citizen of the forum state. Although this is a necessary condition for removal, it is not sufficient to establish jurisdiction. The district court must also have original jurisdiction over the action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 3
1

As a result, the case must be

See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Based on the foregoing, the case is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Yolo, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 25, 2011 The Clerk is ordered to close

_____________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4