The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Dolly M. Gee, United States District Judge
Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
VALENCIA VALLERY NOT REPORTED
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS-ORDER REMANDING CASE TO LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present None Present
Plaintiffs Maureen and Terry Cross filed a complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court on April 25, 2011. On June 2, 2011, Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441. Deutsche Bank filed a motion to dismiss on June 9, 2011 [Doc. # 5]. Plaintiffs filed an opposition on June 23, 2011 [Doc. # 8]. On June 27, 2011, Deutsche Bank filed a reply [Doc. # 9]. The Court took this matter under submission on July 6, 2011 [Doc. # 10].
In their opposition, Plaintiffs advance several reasons why they believe removal was improper-in particular, that the amount in controversy is below the jurisdictional minimum- and request that the Court remand this case to state court. (Opp'n at 6-7, 9-13, 20.) Because Deutsche Bank did not respond to these arguments in its reply, the Court permitted it to file a supplemental brief regarding the propriety of removal. See Karambelas v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 992 F.2d 971, 973 (9th Cir. 1993) (finding that "the remand issue was put squarely before the district court" when raised in opposition to a motion to dismiss even though the plaintiff filed no formal motion for remand). Deutsche Bank filed its supplemental brief on July 12, 2011 [Doc. #11].
In a case that has been removed from state court to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, the proponent of federal jurisdiction has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that removal is proper. Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 2010). There is a "strong presumption against removal jurisdiction," and courts must reject it "if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance." Id. at 1107 (quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam)) (internal quotation marks omitted). When challenged on allegations of jurisdictional facts, the parties must support their allegations by competent proof. Hertz Corp. v. Friend, __ U.S. __, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 1194-95, 175 L.Ed.2d 1029 (2010).
To determine whether the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional requirement, a court may first consider whether it is facially apparent from the complaint. If not, the court may then consider facts in the removal petition and may require the parties to submit additional evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time of removal. Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 690 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997)). In calculating the amount in controversy, a court may consider both the amount ...