Carrillo v. Alderete

Filing 3

ORDER signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 7/25/2017. REMANDING CASE to Superior Court of California in the County of Sacramento. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED (Washington, S)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 GLORIA A. CARRILLO, 5 Plaintiff, 6 7 No. 2:17-cv-01522-GEB-AC v. SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER LUIS I. ALDERETE, 8 Defendant. 9 Defendant, 10 of Removal proceeding 13 County of Sacramento. 14 However, this case will be remanded to the Superior Court of 15 California 16 jurisdiction over this case. this unlawful Notice of Removal (“NOR”) 1, ECF No. 1. the a court ‘strong lacks presumption 20 AABB Fitness Holdings, Inc., 414 F. App’x 62, 64 (9th Cir. 2011) 21 (quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). 22 “If 23 district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall 24 be remanded.” 25 — remand an action sua sponte if it determines that it lacks 26 subject matter jurisdiction.” 27 08985 MMM (FFMx), 2012 WL 5830079, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 28 2012) (citing Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. final the burden of Lindley Contours, LLC v. judgment 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). has removal establishing that removal is proper.” before party against matter 19 time removing subject jurisdiction,’ any the federal 18 at and removing a detainer action from the Superior Court of California in the is 2017, filed 12 “There 21, persona, Notice because July propria 11 17 on in it appears that the “The court may — indeed must GFD, LLC v. Carter, No. CV 12- 1 1 Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003)). 2 Defendant contends in the Notice of Removal that 3 diversity of citizenship of the parties in this case justifies 4 removal. 5 citizenship statute prescribes in 28 U.S.C. § 1332: “The district 6 courts 7 where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of 8 $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs,” and the action is 9 between “citizens of different States . . . .” 10 NOR at 7. shall have The pertinent part of the diversity of original jurisdiction of all civil actions Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that the “[a]mount 11 demanded does not exceed $10,000.” 12 complaint affirmatively alleges that the amount in controversy is 13 less than the jurisdictional threshold, a removing defendant has 14 the “burden of proof . . . to establish the amount in controversy 15 [under] the preponderance of the evidence standard.” 16 v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, 728 F.3d 975, 977 (9th Cir. 2013). 17 Defendant does not challenge the amount Plaintiff alleges is in 18 controversy. 19 citizens of different States. 20 21 When a state court Rodriguez Nor has Defendant demonstrated that the parties are Therefore, this case is remanded to the Superior Court of California in the County of Sacramento. 22 23 NOR at 2. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 25, 2017 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?