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