United States District Court, C.D. California
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND TO STATE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE
the Court is Valerie Romero's ("Romero" or
"Plaintff") Motion to Remand to State Court
("Motion") (Dkt. 9). The Court finds this matter
appropriate for resolution without oral argument.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; L.R. 7-15. Having considered the moving
papers and the parties' arguments, the Court DENIES the
commenced an action against Wright Medical Group N.V., which
was formerly known as Tornier, Inc. ("Tornier or
"Defendant") on April 1, 2016. Notice of Removal (Dkt.
1) at 1. Plaintiff served the Complaint on Defendant Tornier
on April 4, 2016. Id. at 2. The Complaint did not
disclose Plaintiff's citizenship or the amount in
controversy. See Id. Ex. D ("Compl.") at
13, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document labeled
"Stipulation of Plaintiff Regarding Plaintiff's
Citizenship and the Amount in Controversy"
("Stipulation"). See Id. Ex. A at 1. That
document states "Plaintiff is and has been a citizen of
the State of California at all times relevant to this action,
and (2) Plaintiff seeks damages in this action in excess of
$75, 000.00 and Plaintiff reasonably believes that the amount
at issue in this action exceeds $75, 000.00."
18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Consolidate her case
with a separate medical negligence case. Declaration of
Joesph H. Low IV ("Low Decl.") (Dkt. 9-2) ¶
7, 2016, Tornier removed the instant case to this Court.
See Notice of Removal. In the Notice of Removal,
Tornier states the diversity of citizenship requirements of
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) are satisfied. Id. at 3.
Specifically, Plaintiff is a citizen of California, and
Tornier is incorporated in the Netherlands and has its
principal place of business there as well. Id. at
10. Additionally, Tornier notes that Plaintiff's
Stipulation establishes the $75, 000 amount in controversy
requirement is satisfied. Id. at 2.
filed the instant Motion on June 24, 2016. Defendant opposed
on July 5, 2016 (Dkt. 10),  and Plaintiff replied on July 11,
2016 (Dkt. 12).
at any time before final judgment it appears that the
district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case
shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Because 28
U.S.C. § 1447(c) contains the word "shall, "
not the word "may, " the court is powerless to hear
the case when it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and must
remand the case to the state court. See Int'l Primate
Prot. League v. Adm'rs of Tulane Educ.
Fund, 500 U.S. 72, 87 (1991) ("[A] finding that
removal was improper deprives that court of subject matter
jurisdiction and obliges a remand under the terms of §
defendant may generally remove a civil action from a state
court to a federal court if the action could have been
brought in federal court originally. 28 U.S.C. §
1441(a). A federal court has federal question jurisdiction
over "civil actions arising under the Constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331; see Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc. v.
Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 807-08 (1986). A federal court
has diversity jurisdiction if: (1) the controversy is between
"citizens of different States"; and (2) the amount
in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75, 000. 28
U.S.C. § 1332; see Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v.
Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74 (1978). Therefore, if the
district court has a basis for subject matter jurisdiction
under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or28 U.S.C. § 1332,
the action may be removed by a defendant. See Caterpillar
Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68-69 (1996); Wis. Dept.
of Corrs. v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 386 (1998).
a major limitation exists regarding the defendant's right
to removal. A defendant may not remove a civil action to
federal court in the state in which the action was brought if
the defendant is a citizen of that state. 28 U.S.C. §
1441(b)(2); see Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S.
81, 90 n.6 (2005) (noting lower courts' characterization
of the defect as procedural, not jurisdictional). Thus, a
district court must remand a case removed by a
"local" defendant - that is, a defendant who is a
citizen of the state in which the action was originally
brought. See Spencer v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Dist. of
Cal., 393 F.3d 867, 870 (9th Cir. 2004) ("It is
thus clear that the presence of a local defendant at the time
removal is sought bars removal.").