Antonia Montanez v. Macy's Inc et al
Filing
7
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. cc: order, docket, remand letter toto Los Angeles Superior Court, Case number BC513772 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 .(Attachments: # 1 remand letter). (lc). Modified on 8/12/2013 (lc).
<![CDATA[
Antonia Montanez v. Macy's Inc et al
Doc. 7
O
JS-6
1
2
3
4
5
6
cc: order, docket, remand letter to
Los Angeles Superior Court, No. BC513772
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ANTONIA MONTANEZ,
12
13
14
v.
Plaintiff,
MACY’S, INC., and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive,
15
Case No. 2:13-cv-05707-ODW(PJWx)
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT
Defendants.
16
17
On August 7, 2013, Defendant Macy’s, Inc. removed this action from the Los
18
Angeles County Superior Court. But after considering the papers filed with the
19
Notice of Removal, the Court determines that Macy’s has failed to satisfy its burden
20
of establishing federal jurisdiction. The Court therefore REMANDS this action back
21
to Los Angeles County Superior Court.
22
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, only having subject-matter
23
jurisdiction over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. U.S. Const.
24
art. III, § 2, cl. 1; e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377
25
(1994).
26
A suit filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the federal court
27
would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). But courts
28
strictly construe § 1441 against a finding of removal jurisdiction, and “[f]ederal
Dockets.Justia.com
1
jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first
2
instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party seeking
3
removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Durham v. Lockheed
4
Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566).
5
Federal courts have original jurisdiction where an action presents a federal
6
question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
7
To exercise diversity jurisdiction, a federal court must find complete diversity of
8
citizenship among the adverse parties, and the amount in controversy must exceed
9
$75,000, usually exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
10
With respect to citizenship, Macy’s Notice of Removal asserts that “[a]ccording
11
to the Complaint, Plaintiff is a citizen of California who resides in Los Angeles
12
County, California.” (Notice of Removal 2.) After reviewing the Complaint, the
13
Court finds no such statement. The Complaint states, “Plaintiff . . . is an individual
14
who at all times relevant herein was a resident of Los Angeles County, State of
15
California”—the Complaint does not declare her citizenship. Residency allegations
16
alone are inadequate to establish citizenship.
17
“determined by her state of domicile, not her state of residence.” Kantor v. Warner-
18
Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Jeffcott v. Donovan, 135
19
F.2d 213, 214 (9th Cir. 1943) (“Diversity of citizenship as a basis for the jurisdiction
20
of a cause in the District Court of the United States is not dependent upon the
21
residence of any of the parties, but upon their citizenship.”). And while a party’s
22
residence may be prima facie evidence of that party’s domicile when an action is
23
originally brought in federal court, residency allegations in alone do not suffice to
24
establish citizenship on removal in light of the strong presumption against removal
25
jurisdiction. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Dyer, 19 F.3d 514, 520 (10th Cir.
26
1994); see Kantor, 265 F.3d at 857; Gaus, 980 F.2d at 567.
A natural person’s citizenship is
27
Moreover, Macy’s cites no other objective facts to establish that Plaintiff is
28
domiciled in California, such as “voting registration and voting practices, location of
2
1
personal and real property, location of brokerage and bank accounts, location of
2
spouse and family, membership in unions and other organizations, place of
3
employment or business, driver’s license and automobile registration, and payment of
4
taxes.” Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1986). Even construing Macy’s
5
citizenship allegations as ones formed under information and belief, those are likewise
6
inadequate to establish diversity jurisdiction on removal.
7
diversity of citizenship upon information and belief is insufficient.” Bradford v.
8
Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines, 217 F. Supp. 525, 527 (N.D. Cal. 1963); see also Kantor,
9
265 F.3d at 857 (“Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity
10
jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant
11
parties.”).
On removal, “alleging
12
Because Macy’s fails to meet its high burden on removal to establish complete
13
diversity between the parties, the Court REMANDS this case to Los Angeles County
14
Superior Court, Case Number BC513772. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
August 12, 2013
17
18
19
____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
]]>
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?
