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)
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?