Hogge et al v. A.W. Chesterton Company

Filing 30

ORDER by Judge Jenkins Granting 16 Motion to Remand (mjjlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/8/2007)

Hogge et al v. A.W. Chesterton Company

Doc. 30

Case 3:07-cv-02873-MJJ

Document 30

Filed 06/08/2007

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

EVERETT HOGGE AND PRISCILLA HOGGE, Plaintiff, v. A W CHESTERTON COMPANY, Defendant. /

No. C07-02873 MJJ ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Everett Hogge and Priscilla Hogge ("Plaintiffs") Motion to Remand.1 Defendant John Crane Inc. ("Defendant") opposes the motion. The Court having considered the parties' arguments and upon good cause shown GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant in a civil action may remove a case from state court to federal district court if the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The district court has subject matter jurisdiction over a case if there is diversity of citizenship between the parties or if the action is founded on a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question); 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction); Ethridge v. Harbor House Restaurant, 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988). Section 1441(b) further provides that if the basis for federal jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship, removal is available only if no defendant is a citizen of the forum state. As the party seeking to

1

Docket No. 16.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:07-cv-02873-MJJ

Document 30

Filed 06/08/2007

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

remove the action, the defendant bears the burden of establishing that subject matter jurisdiction exists. Ethridge, 861 F.2d at 1393. Because the Court strictly construes the removal statute against removal, if there is any doubt as to the existence of federal jurisdiction, the Court should remand the matter to state court. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Because the record before the Court does not establish that binding settlement agreements have eliminated all non-diverse Defendants from the state court action, complete diversity did not exist as of the time of removal. Accordingly, this Court is without subject matter jurisdiction. For the foregoing reason, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated: June 8, 2007

MARTIN J. JENKINS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2