Smiley v. PNC Bank, NA et al
Filing
14
ORDER Denying 7 Motion to Remand. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 1/27/25. (aas)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ALI SMILEY,
Case No. 24-cv-2189-MMA-BLM
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
REMAND
14
PNC BANK, N.A., et al.,
[Doc. No. 7]
Defendants.
15
16
17
18
On December 5, 2024, Plaintiff Ali Smiley (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion to remand
19
this action to California Superior Court, County of San Diego. Doc. No. 7. Defendant
20
PNC Bank, N.A. (“Defendant”) filed a response in opposition, to which Plaintiff replied.
21
Doc. Nos. 9, 12. The Court took this matter under submission on January 17, 2025,
22
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. Doc.
23
No. 13. For the reasons below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to remand.
I. BACKGROUND 1
24
Defendant, a corporate entity, employed Plaintiff, an individual, since on or around
25
26
June 1, 2021, when it completed acquisition of Plaintiff’s previous employer. Doc. No.
27
28
1
For the purposes of resolving this motion, the Court draws these facts from Plaintiff’s complaint.
-1-
24-cv-2189-MMA-BLM
1
1-2 (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 1–2, 10. Plaintiff served as Vice President, Relationship Manager, for
2
Defendant’s Business Banking division. Id. ¶ 10. On or around February 26, 2023,
3
Plaintiff alleges that he submitted a complaint to Defendant’s HR department concerning,
4
among other things, an alleged “pattern of favoritism toward non-Middle Eastern/Non
5
Muslim/Non female employees in this district.” Id. ¶12. Plaintiff had made similar
6
complaints before concerning Defendant’s hiring process. Id. ¶ 15. However, as with
7
past complaints, Defendant’s HR department took no action beyond holding a Zoom
8
meeting with Plaintiff. Id. ¶¶ 13–14.
9
After Plaintiff made this HR complaint, Defendant placed him on a performance
10
improvement plan and demoted him to the role of “banker.” Id. ¶ 16. “During this time,
11
Plaintiff suffered from severe stress and anxiety . . . dreaded going to work . . . gained a
12
significant amount of weight . . . [and] suffered from insomnia. Plaintiff’s day-to-day
13
personal and professional relationships suffered.” Id. ¶ 17. Plaintiff informed Defendant
14
of these conditions and “requested an accommodation.” Id. ¶ 19. However, Defendant
15
failed to provide one or otherwise engage with his request. Id. On or about May 1, 2023,
16
Plaintiff submitted his resignation, he alleges, because of Defendant’s actions regarding
17
his HR complaint and his conditions/accommodation request. Id. ¶ 20.
18
Plaintiff filed his initial complaint in California Superior Court, County of San
19
Diego, on August 14, 2024. Compl. at 1. Defendant removed this action on
20
November 21, 2024. Doc. No. 1.
21
22
II. LEGAL STANDARD
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.
23
Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “They possess only that power authorized by
24
Constitution and statute.” Id. “A federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction in a
25
particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock W., Inc. v. Confederated
26
Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing California ex rel. Younger v. Andrus,
27
608 F.2d 1247, 1249 (9th Cir. 1979)). The party seeking federal jurisdiction bears the
28
burden of establishing jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377 (citing McNutt v. Gen.
-2-
24-cv-2189-MMA-BLM
1
Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S 178, 182–83 (1936)).
2
Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 1441(a) provides for removal of a civil
3
action from state to federal court if the case could have originated in federal court. The
4
removal statute is construed strictly against removal, and “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be
5
rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v.
6
Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co.,
7
592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979)).
8
III. DISCUSSION
9
Defendant removed this action asserting that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to
10
28 U.S.C. §1332, “diversity jurisdiction.” See Doc. No. 1 at 6–7. 2 Section 1332 provides
11
that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the
12
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and
13
costs, and is between . . . citizens of different states . . .” or “citizens of a State and
14
citizens or subjects of a foreign state.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1)–(2). Plaintiff moves to
15
remand this case on the grounds that Defendant has failed to establish the requisite
16
diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy for the Court to exercise jurisdiction. 3
17
Doc. No. 7 at 2.
18
A.
19
Citizenship
First, Plaintiff alleges that his “[c]omplaint does not allege the location of
20
Plaintiff’s residence and Defendant has not submitted any evidence whatsoever in
21
support of its claim that Plaintiff resides in San Diego, California at the time of
22
Removal.” Doc. No. 7 at 13. Defendant responds by pointing to a declaration submitted
23
in support of its removal papers, demonstrating “that Defendant is a citizen of Delaware
24
and Plaintiff was a California resident while he was employed with Defendant.” Doc
25
26
27
28
2
All citations to electronically filed documents refer to the pagination assigned by the CM/ECF system.
Plaintiff presents its arguments in reverse order. Plaintiff also appears to argue that Defendant does not
sufficiently prove jurisdiction under the “federal question” doctrine. Doc. No. 7 at 7. As Defendant
does not appear to claim jurisdiction under the doctrine, the Court need not address it.
3
-3-
24-cv-2189-MMA-BLM
1
No. 9 at 15. This, Defendant asserts, evidences an intent to remain in California
2
sufficient to establish California citizenship. Id.
3
For the purposes of assessing jurisdiction, the Court uses the parties’ citizenships at
4
the time the suit was filed. Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Glob. Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 570–
5
71 (2004). “[A] natural person’s state citizenship is . . . determined by [their] state of
6
domicile, not [their] state of residence. A person’s domicile is [their] permanent home,
7
where [they] reside[] with the intention to remain or to which [they] intend to return.”
8
Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001).4
9
A party asserting diversity of citizenship, if challenged, must support allegations of
10
diversity by a preponderance of the evidence. Digital Media Sols., LLC v. Zeetogroup,
11
LLC, No. 22-CV-1184 JLS (AHG), 2022 WL 16639293 *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2022); cf.
12
NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 613–14 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The party
13
seeking to invoke the district court’s diversity jurisdiction always bears the burden of
14
both pleading and proving diversity jurisdiction. However, at the pleading stage,
15
allegations of jurisdictional fact need not be proven unless challenged.”) (internal
16
citations omitted). “If a defendant carries its burden of presenting evidence that diversity
17
of citizenship exists, the burden of production shifts to the plaintiff to rebut the evidence
18
of diversity of citizenship . . . .” Bolger-Linna v. Am. Stock Transfer & Tr. Co., LLC, No.
19
3:24-CV-00539-RBM-VET, 2024 WL 4713905 *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2024)
20
The Court notes, first, a notice of removal need only contain a “short and plain
21
statement for the grounds of removal,” and need only be proved when the facts
22
underlying those statements are challenged. 28 U.S.C. § 1446; NewGen, LLC v, 840 F.3d
23
at 613–14 (citing Kanter 265 F.3d at 857). Thus, Defendant’s statement that “Plaintiff, . .
24
. is, and has been at all times since this action commenced, a citizen of California[]” was
25
sufficient until challenged. Doc. No. 1 at 7. For that same reason, the Court is not
26
27
28
4
Plaintiff does not appear to dispute that he is a United States citizen.
-4-
24-cv-2189-MMA-BLM
1
persuaded by Plaintiff’s objection that Defendant’s attachments in its opposition is
2
untimely. Doc. No. 12 at 5–6.
3
Given the record as a whole, Defendant sufficiently proves that Plaintiff was a
4
citizen of California when the suit was filed, and that Defendant is a citizen of Delaware.
5
As to Plaintiff, Defendant attaches to its notice of removal a declaration by its employee
6
relations investigations manager. Doc. No. 1-5 (“Collins Decl.”). Within, the declarant
7
asserts that “[b]ased on information from Plaintiff’s personnel file and information in
8
PNC’s current possession, Plaintiff listed a San Diego, California address as his address
9
during his employment with PNC.” Id. ¶ 7. According to the complaint, that residency
10
dates to at least June 1, 2021, when Defendant acquired his former employer, and
11
continued California until at least on or around February 2023, when his employment
12
ended. FAC ¶ 10. Additionally, Plaintiff himself asserts that he “ made it clear to his
13
manager . . . that his plan was to remain with Defendant for the long term.” Id. ¶ 11.
14
Given this information, and that this motion is made at the pleading stages, the Court
15
determines that Defendant sufficiently establishes that Plaintiff was domiciled in
16
California. See Anderson v. Watts, 138 U.S. 694, 706 (1891) (“The place where a person
17
lives is taken to be his domicile until facts adduced establish the contrary; and a domicile,
18
when acquired, is presumed to continue until it is shown to have been changed.”); see
19
also Mondragon v. Cap. One Auto Fin., 736 F.3d 880, 885–86 (9th Cir. 2013) (same).
20
Importantly, Plaintiff does not provide conflicting evidence of his domicile, nor does he
21
allege of what other state he is a citizen, if not California, but instead attacks Defendants’
22
“Comprehensive Person Report” attached to its opposition. See Doc. No. 7 at 13–15; see
23
generally Doc. No. 12. 5 However, even without this report, Defendant provides
24
sufficient evidence of Plaintiff’s citizenship. Producing no evidence to rebut
25
26
27
28
5
Though it is skeptical of hearsay objections presented within a motion to remand at this stage of
litigation, the Court need not resolve Plaintiff’s objection made on that basis, as it can adduce citizenship
without the report.
-5-
24-cv-2189-MMA-BLM
1
Defendant’s, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s California citizenship is duly established.
2
See Bolger-Linna, 2024 WL 4713905 at *5.
3
Defendant likewise provides evidence, unchallenged by Plaintiff, that as a
4
nationally chartered bank with articles of association declaring a main office in Delaware,
5
that it is a citizen of Delaware. Collins Decl. ¶ 5. This appears proper. See Wachovia
6
Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 318 (2006). Thus, the Court determines that there is full
7
diversity of citizenship.
8
B.
Amount in Controversy
9
Plaintiff also argues that Defendant fails to prove that the amount in controversy
10
exceeds $75,000, as required for diversity jurisdiction. “[W]hen a complaint filed in state
11
court alleges on its face an amount in controversy sufficient to meet the federal
12
jurisdictional threshold, such requirement is presumptively satisfied unless it appears to a
13
‘legal certainty’ that the plaintiff cannot actually recover that amount.” Guglielmino v.
14
McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Sanchez v. Monumental
15
Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398 (9th Cir. 1996). However, “where it is unclear or ambiguous
16
from the face of a state-court complaint whether the requisite amount in controversy is
17
pled . . . we apply a preponderance of the evidence standard[,]” under which a defendant
18
must put forth evidence to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the amount in
19
controversy is greater than $75,000. Id. at 699–701.
20
Here, Plaintiff includes in his state court complaint a prayer for “all actual,
21
consequential, and incidental damages, including but not limited to loss of earnings and
22
employee benefits, according to proof, but no less than five million dollars ($5,000,000)
23
and no more than ten million dollars ($10,000,000)” among other relief separately
24
enumerated, including attorneys’ fees and punitive damages. Compl. at 26. Plaintiff
25
does not deny that he seeks this amount, but now seeks to label his own allegations as
26
“speculative” and challenge the sufficiency of Defendant’s evidence.6 Doc. No. 7 at 8–
27
28
6
The Court takes note that, in its motion to remand, Plaintiff admits that “[n]ormally, [proving the
amount in controversy] is satisfied if the plaintiff claims a sum greater than the jurisdictional
-6-
24-cv-2189-MMA-BLM
1
13. Plaintiff also, in his motion, attempts to merge the “actual, consequential, and
2
incidental” damages in with the restitution, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs
3
that he lists independently in his prayer for relief. Compare id., with Compl. at 26. “In
4
measuring the amount in controversy, a court must assume that the allegations of the
5
complaint are true and that a jury will return a verdict for the plaintiff on all claims made
6
in the complaint.” Korn v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp., 536 F. Supp. 2d 1199, 1205 (E.D.
7
Cal. 2008). As Plaintiff pleads actual, consequential, and incidental damages exceeding
8
$75,000 (by magnitudes) and there is no indication that, to a legal certainty, Plaintiff
9
cannot recover that amount, the Court determines the amount in controversy requirement
10
is satisfied.
11
IV. CONCLUSION
12
As there is complete diversity and the amount in controversy is greater than
13
$75,000, jurisdiction is proper. The Court thus DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to remand.
14
15
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 27, 2025
_____________________________
HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO
United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
requirement,” and thus is somewhat uncertain as to the cause for Plaintiff’s dispute here. Doc. No. 7 at
10.
-7-
24-cv-2189-MMA-BLM
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?