Bomberger v. Hanson et al

Filing 4

ORDER Remanding Case to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 2/20/14. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(cc: Superior Court)(kaj)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL BOMBERGER, 12 13 CASE NO. 14cv357-LAB (RBB) Plaintiff, ORDER OF REMAND vs. THEO HANSON, et al., 14 Defendant. 15 16 Defendant Theo Hanson, proceeding pro se, removed this case from the Superior 17 Court of California for the County of San Diego, citing diversity jurisdiction. The claims arise 18 from state law only. 19 The notice of removal alleges that Bomberger is a California citizen, that Hanson was 20 a California citizen at the time the complaint was filed but has since become an Illinois 21 citizen, and that the other Defendant,1 Heartland Coalition, Inc., is a California corporation. 22 Heartland has appeared as a party in state court but did not join in the notice of removal, in 23 violation of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1446(b)(2)(A). But that is not the most serious problem. 24 The pleadings establish conclusively that the parties are not diverse. Although 25 Hanson alleges he is an Illinois citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, this legal 26 27 28 1 The caption indicates that Heartland is a Cross-plaintiff and Bomberger a Crossdefendant. Tnotice of removal alleges that Heartland also filed a cross-complaint against Hanson, but never served it on Hanson. The cross-complaint is not attached to the notice. But it is clear Heartland has appeared and is actively litigating. -1- 14cv357 1 conclusion is unwarranted, because citizenship for diversity purposes is determined as of 2 the date the case is filed in state court. See Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 3 U.S. 567, 569–71 (2004) (noting long-standing rule that, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, 4 citizenship is determined as of the time of filing). See also Fed’l Ins. Co. v. Brasscraft Mfg. 5 Co., 2014 WL 545786, *3 n.14 (C.D.Cal., Feb. 10, 2014) (diversity jurisdiction in removed 6 case was determined with regard to plaintiff’s citizenship at the time the suit was filed in state 7 court). Because Hanson was a California citizen at the time the suit was filed, he is not 8 diverse from the other California parties. 9 But more than this, because Heartland is a California corporation, it is a California 10 citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (providing that a 11 corporation is a citizenship of the states in which it is incorporated and has its principal place 12 of business). Because Heartland and Bomberger are both California citizens, complete 13 diversity is lacking. See Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005) (holding that 14 diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants). 15 16 Because jurisdiction is lacking, this action is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 DATED: February 20, 2014 19 20 HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- 14cv357

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?