UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 7, 2011
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP., ET AL
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Present: The Honorable R. Gary Klausner, U.S. District Judge
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS)
ORDER REMANDING CIVIL ACTION TO SUPERIOR COURT
On June 3, 2011, Costco Wholesale Corp, et al ("Defendants") removed this action from Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California based on diversity jurisdiction. For the following reasons, the Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction over this matter.
A party may remove a matter to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction where no defendant has the same citizenship as any plaintiff, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441. Generally, there is a strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, and the defendant "has the burden of establishing that removal is proper." Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n. 3) (9th Cir. 1990)).
Plaintiff's Complaint alleges four state claims arising out of alleged wrongful termination, and names Costco Wholesale, Corp., as well as Carlos Arellanos as defendants. According to the Complaint, Arellanos is a citizen of California. In Defendants' Notice of Removal, Defendants do not refute Arellanos's citizenship, or establish that Arellanos is a sham defendant. Instead, Defendants state by declaration only that Plaintiff's claim against Arellanos is without merit. This is insufficient to satisfy Defendants' burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.
In light of the foregoing, the Court hereby remands the action for state court for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Preparer slw
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.