Jack Saatjian v. The American Bottling Company et al
Filing
9
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson: Defendants have failed to meet its burden to demonstrate the Court's diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court remands this action to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. VC063290. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6 ) Court Reporter: Not Reported. (Attachments: # 1 CV-103 Remand Transmittal Letter) (gk)
<![CDATA[
Jack Saatjian v. The American Bottling Company et al
Doc. 9
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 13-5607 PA (RZx)
Title
Jack Saatjian v. The American Bottling Company, et al.
Present: The
Honorable
Date
August 12, 2013
PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Paul Songco
Not Reported
N/A
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None
None
Proceedings:
IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER
Before the Court is a Notice of Removal filed by defendants The American Bottling Company (a
named defendant and also erroneously sued as Seven-Up/RC Bottling Company, Inc. and Seven-Up/RC
Bottling Company of Southern California) and Dr.. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. (collectively
“Defendants”) on August 2, 2013. Defendants assert that this Court has jurisdiction over the action
brought against them by plaintiff Jack Saatjian (“Plaintiff”) based on the Court’s diversity jurisdiction.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over
matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,
511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). A suit filed in state court may be
removed to federal court if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28
U.S.C. § 1441(a). A removed action must be remanded to state court if the federal court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party
seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Prize Frize,
Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.) Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 1999). “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).
In attempting to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, Defendants must prove that there is
complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. To establish citizenship for diversity purposes, a natural person must be a
citizen of the United States and be domiciled in a particular state. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd.,
704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1983). Persons are domiciled in the places they reside with the intent to
remain or to which they intend to return. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th
Cir. 2001). “A person residing in a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not
necessarily a citizen of that state.” Id. For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is a
citizen of any state where it is incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of business.
28 U.S.C. § 1332(c); see also Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990).
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
Dockets.Justia.com
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 13-5607 PA (RZx)
Date
Title
August 12, 2013
Jack Saatjian v. The American Bottling Company, et al.
The Notice of Removal alleges that “Plaintiff Jack Saatjian ‘is and at all times relevant hereto
was a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California.’” (Notice of Removal ¶ 12.) The
Notice of Removal additional alleges that “by Plaintiff’s own admissions, he has resided in California at
all relevant times, worked in California, and seeks damages based on the theory that he would have
continued to work in California but for the termination. Plaintiff is, therefore, a citizen of the State of
California.”) As the Notice of Removal makes clear, however, the Complaint only alleges Plaintiff’s
residence. (Complaint ¶ 1.) Because an individual is not necessarily domiciled where he or she resides,
Defendants’ allegations of Plaintiff’s domiciliary and citizenship, based on an allegation of residence,
are insufficient to establish Plaintiff’s citizenship. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d at 857.
“Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege
affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.” Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857; Bradford v.
Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines, 217 F. Supp. 525, 527 (N.D. Cal. 1963) (“A petition [for removal] alleging
diversity of citizenship upon information and belief is insufficient.”). As a result, Defendants’
allegations are insufficient to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction.
Therefore, Defendants have failed to meet its burden to demonstrate the Court’s diversity
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court remands this action to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No.
VC063290. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 2
]]>
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?
