The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable John F. Walter, United States District Judge
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO RIVERSIDE
On December 21, 2012, Plaintiffs Audra Haston and Marvin Haston ("Plaintiffs") filed a Complaint against Defendants Elvin Yeo, M.D., American Medical Systems, Inc., and Does 1 to 100 in Riverside County Superior Court. On February 27, 2013, Defendant American Medical Systems, Inc. ("AMS") filed a Notice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332 and 1441(b) ("Notice of Removal"), alleging that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
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, Defendant AMS 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 Ross & Co., 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. Because Defendant AMS have not met its burden of ...