Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Marc Myerson v. Darling International Inc.

September 13, 2012

MARC MYERSON
v.
DARLING INTERNATIONAL INC., ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Present: The Honorable S. James Otero, United States District Judge

Priority Send Enter Closed JS-5/JS-6 Scan Only CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Victor Paul Cruz Courtroom Clerk COUNSEL PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: Not Present

Not Present Court Reporter

COUNSEL PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

Not Present

PROCEEDINGS (in chambers): ORDER REMANDING CASE TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT [Docket No. 1]

matter is before the Court on Defendant Darling International Inc.'s ("Defendant") Notice of Removal of Action Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441(a) and (b) ("Notice"), filed on August 15, For the following reasons, the Court REMANDS this action to Los Angeles Superior Court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

alleges the following facts. Defendant employed Plaintiff as an Account Manager from approximately July 2011 to February 24, 2012. (Notice Ex. 1 ("Compl.") ¶¶ 6-7, Aug. 15, 2012, No. 1.) Defendant terminated Plaintiff's "employment shortly after he reported a work-related resulting in a physical disability." (Compl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff filed a complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendant on July 10, 2012. Plaintiff alleges two causes of (1) Employment Discrimination - Physical Disability; and (2) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy. (See generally Compl.) On August 15, 2012, Defendant removed this to the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441(a)-(b). (Notice 1:24-28, Aug. 15, 2012, ECF No. 1.)

DISCUSSION

Court raises the issue of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte. The Court finds that Defendant has failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction under § 1332(a)(1) and § 1441(a) because it does not state facts adequate to support its assertion of complete diversity, or that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

A. Sua Sponte Consideration of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Ninth Circuit has held that "a court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua , at any time during the pendency of the action." Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, (9th Cir. 2002). A district court must remand the case "[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Court finds it appropriate to determine, sua sponte, whether subject matter jurisdiction ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.