Garcia v. Kratos Defense Solutions

Filing 9

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 9/5/2047 DENYING 4 Motion to Remand. (Washington, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROY GARCIA,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-01202-TLN-EFB
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR REMAND

KRATOS DEFENSE SOLUTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff Roy Garcia’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to

18

Remand to State Court. (ECF No. 4.) Defendant Kratos Defense Solutions (“Defendant”)

19

opposes. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff has not replied. The Court has carefully considered the

20

arguments raised by the parties’ briefing. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for

21

Remand to State Court (ECF No. 4) is DENIED.

22

The district court has original jurisdiction over civil actions between citizens of different

23

states in which the alleged damages exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). The party asserting

24

federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving diversity. Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749 (9th

25

Cir. 1986) (citing Resnik v. La Paz Guest Ranch, 289 F.2d 814, 819 (9th Cir. 1961)).

26

The parties agree they are diverse from one another - Plaintiff is a citizen of Colorado and

27

Defendant is a citizen of Delaware and California - and the amount in controversy exceeds

28

$75,000. (ECF No. 4 at 2; ECF No. 6 at 3.) Plaintiff moves for remand, arguing this Court “does
1

1

not have jurisdiction over claims based on state specific laws and associated claims from the same

2

wrong or action,” because one of Plaintiff’s claims is based on alleged violations of California

3

Government Code §12940(a). (ECF No. 4 at 2–3.) Plaintiff appears to conflate federal question

4

jurisdiction with diversity jurisdiction. Defendant removed this matter on the basis of diversity

5

jurisdiction (ECF No. 1 at 1), and the parties agree that all requirements for diversity jurisdiction

6

are met. (ECF No. 4 at 2; ECF No. 6 at 3.) Under this circumstance, removal is proper.

7

Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 4).

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

Dated: September 5, 2017

11
12
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2