Huck v. Kone, Inc.

Filing 25

ORDER RE: 9 REMANDING CASE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 09/17/2010.(rslc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/17/2010)

Huck v. Kone, Inc.

Doc. 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

*E-Filed 09/17/2010*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION RANDALL G. HUCK, Plaintiff, No. C 10-1845 RS ORDER OF REMAND

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

v. KONE, INC.,

Defendant. ____________________________________/ Plaintiff Randall Huck filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, alleging wrongful termination in violation of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act against his former employer, Kone, Inc. Huck raised only state law claims. Kone duly removed the action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. In its removal motion, Kone iterated that the parties are in fact diverse. Kone instructs that it is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal place of business in Illinois. Although Huck did not identify the amount in controversy in his Complaint, Kone asserted in its removal papers that this amount exceeds $75,000. Kone did not, however, introduce any facts to support or explain this claim. Huck timely filed the instant motion to remand. He disavows that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and argues that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Kone has not filed papers in opposition or otherwise submitted any material to defend its jurisdictional claim. The matter is appropriate for resolution without oral
NO. C 10-1845 RS ORDER

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and the motion hearing set for September 23, 2010 is vacated. The Ninth Circuit has emphasized that the removal statute must be construed strictly against removal. See, e.g., Boggs v. Lewis, 863 F.2d 662, 663 (9th Cir. 1988). Federal jurisdiction "must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance." Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979)). Where, as is the case here, it is unclear what amount of damages the plaintiff has sought, the defendant "bears the burden of actually proving the facts to support jurisdiction, including the jurisdictional amount." Id. at 566-67 ("If [a defendant's] allegations of jurisdictional facts are challenged by his adversary in any appropriate manner, he must support them by competent proof."). Kone has submitted no facts whatsoever to support its jurisdiction claim and has therefore utterly failed to meet its burden. Huck's motion to remand must therefore be granted. The matter shall be remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco and the clerk shall close this case.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 09/17/2010 RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NO. C 10-1845 RS ORDER

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DATED: 09/17/2010 /s/ Chambers Staff Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg Randall G. Huck 1631 Lake Street San Francisco, CA 94121 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A HARD COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS MAILED TO:

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

* Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to any co-counsel who have not registered with the Court's electronic filing system.

NO. C 10-1845 RS ORDER

3