UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JS-6 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 26, 2012
EL PASEO JEWELRY EXCHANGE, INC., ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable John F. Walter, United States District Judge
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES
On November 8, 2012, Plaintiff Crone Hawxhurst LLP ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court against Defendants El Paseo Jewelry Exchange, Inc.; El Paseo Jewelry, Inc.; Rajendra Mehta; Atul Mehta, and Ivan Kalensky (collectively, "Defendants"). On December 11, 2012, Atul Mehta ("Mehta") filed a Notice of Removal, alleging that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 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 Bender v. Williamsport Area School , 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). "Because of the Congressional purpose to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts on removal, the statute is strictly construed, and federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance." Duncan v. , 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations and quotations omitted). There is a strong presumption that the Court is without jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears. See Fifty Associates v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 446 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1990). As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, Mehta bears the burden of demonstrating that removal is proper. See, e.g., Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992); Emrich v. Touche , 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988).
Diversity jurisdiction founded under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) requires that (1) all plaintiffs be of different citizenship than all defendants, and (2) the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In this case, Mehta failed to allege the citizenship of Plaintiff or any of the Defendants.
Therefore, Mehta has failed to satisfy the burden of establishing that jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) exists. Accordingly, this action is REMANDED to Los Angeles Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.