Goldman v. U.S. Transport & Logistics, LLC et al

Filing 8

ORDER Remanding Case to State Court. Court finds Dft's Notice of Removal is deficient. Because Dft fails to provide facts necessary to establish diversity jurisdiction as required by 28 USC 1332(a), Court remands the action to San Diego Superior Court for lack of subject matters jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 12/8/2016. (cc: San Diego Superior Court) (jah)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

JOSHUA GOLDMAN,

13

Case No. 16-cv-2930-BAS(NLS)
Plaintiff,

14
15

v.

16

ORDER REMANDING ACTION
TO STATE COURT FOR LACK
OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION

U.S. TRANSPORT & LOGISTICS,
LLC,

17

Defendant.

18
19
20
21

On October 25, 2016, Plaintiff Joshua Goldman commenced this employment

22

dispute against Defendant U.S. Transport & Logistics, LLC in the San Diego

23

Superior Court. On December 1, 2016, Defendant removed this action to federal

24

court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(b).

25

For the following reasons, the Court finds Defendant’s Notice of Removal is

26

deficient and REMANDS this action to the San Diego Superior Court for lack of

27

subject matter jurisdiction.

28

//
–1–

16cv2930

1

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

2

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life

3

Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “They possess only that power authorized

4

by Constitution or a statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Id.

5

(internal citations omitted). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited

6

jurisdiction and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting

7

jurisdiction.” Id. (internal citations omitted); see also Abrego Abrego v. The Dow

8

Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006).

9

Consistent with the limited jurisdiction of federal courts, the removal statute is

10

strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566

11

(9th Cir. 1992); see also Sygenta Crop Prot. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002);

12

O’Halloran v. Univ. of Wash., 856 F.2d 1375, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). “The strong

13

presumption against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the

14

burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566; see also

15

Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assoc., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990);

16

O’Halloran, 856 F.2d at 1380. “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any

17

doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566.

18

It is well-established that “a district court’s duty to establish subject matter

19

jurisdiction is not contingent upon the parties’ arguments.” See United Investors Life

20

Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2004). Courts may

21

consider the issue sua sponte. Demery v. Kupperman, 735 F.2d 1139, 1149 n.8 (9th

22

Cir. 1984). Indeed, the Supreme Court has emphasized that “district courts have an

23

‘independent obligation to address subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte.’” Grupo

24

Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004) (quoting United States

25

v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 300 F. Supp. 2d 964, 972 (E.D. Cal. 2004)).

26

//

27

//

28

//
–2–

16cv2930

1

II.

ANALYSIS

2

In order to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, the defendant must

3

demonstrate that there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and

4

that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. To determine

5

whether the amount in controversy has been met on removal, “[t]he district court may

6

consider whether it is ‘facially apparent’ from the complaint that the jurisdictional

7

amount is in controversy.” Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373,

8

377 (9th Cir. 1997). In cases in which the plaintiff’s state-court complaint does not

9

specify an exact damage figure, the defendant “must provide evidence that it is ‘more

10

likely than not’ that the amount in controversy” satisfies the federal diversity

11

jurisdictional amount requirement. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d

12

398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). Defendant fails to satisfy that requirement. See 42 U.S.C. §

13

1332.

14

Here, Plaintiff’s four-page complaint does not include any valuation of the

15

amount in controversy. The relief sought only states unspecified damages “according

16

to proof at trial” and “pursuant to Labor Code § 970.” Despite Defendant’s allegation

17

in the six-paragraph notice of removal that Plaintiff “has placed more than $75,000

18

in controversy in his complaint,” there are no facts provided by Defendant to justify

19

that conclusion. (See Removal Notice ¶¶ 2, 4.) Defendant merely bases this

20

conclusion on allegations in the complaint by reciting certain facts Plaintiff has

21

already alleged.1 (See id. ¶ 4.) These facts identified, such as liability for “property

22

loss,” fail to provide the Court with any guidance as to the amount in controversy.

23

Upon reviewing the complaint, the removal notice, and the LeBeouf

24

Declaration, the Court cannot conclude that the amount in controversy in this action

25

more likely than not exceeds the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000. See Sanchez,

26
27
28

Paragraph 4 of the removal notice cites to Paragraph 6 of the six-paragraph LeBeouf
Declaration. At first glance, this appears to be evidentiary support, but examining the declaration
more closely, Paragraph 6 of the LeBeouf Declaration wholly relies on the complaint.
1

–3–

16cv2930

1

203 F.3d at 404.

2
3

III.

CONCLUSION & ORDER

4

In light of the policy “constru[ing] the removal statute against removal

5

jurisdiction,” and because Defendant fails to provide facts necessary to establish

6

diversity jurisdiction as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), the Court REMANDS this

7

action to the San Diego Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28

8

U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district

9

court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”); Gaus, 980 F.2d

10
11

at 566.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

DATED: December 8, 2016

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–4–

16cv2930