United States District Court, C.D. California
Present: The Honorable PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER
the Court is a Notice of Removal filed by defendant ABM
Onsite Services - West, Inc. dba ABM Parking Services
(“Defendant”). In its Notice of Removal,
Defendant asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over the
action brought against it by plaintiff David Bryant
(“Plaintiff”) based on the Court's diversity
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject
matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the
Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen
v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct.
1673, 1675, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). A suit filed in state
court may be removed to federal court if the federal court
would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(a). A removed action must be remanded to state
court if the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The burden of establishing
federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, and the
removal statute is strictly construed against removal
jurisdiction.” Prize Frize, Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.)
Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 1999).
“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any
doubt as to the right of removal in the first
instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564,
566 (9th Cir. 1992).
attempting to invoke this Court's diversity jurisdiction,
Defendant must prove that there is complete diversity of
citizenship between the parties and that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75, 000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. To
establish citizenship for diversity purposes, a natural
person must be a citizen of the United States and be
domiciled in a particular state. Kantor v. Wellesley
Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1983).
Persons are domiciled in the places they reside with the
intent to remain or to which they intend to return. See
Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th
Cir. 2001). “A person residing in a given state is not
necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not necessarily a
citizen of that state.” Id. For the purposes
of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is a citizen of any
state where it is incorporated and of the state where it has
its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c);
see also Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912
F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990).
previously filed a Notice of Removal on March 3, 2017. In a
March 6, 2017 Order, this Court remanded the action because
Defendants had failed to adequately allege the citizenship of
Plaintiff and, as a result, failed to establish this
Court's diversity jurisdiction. Defendant filed the
current Notice of Removal in an apparent attempt to cure the
defect identified by the Court in the first Notice of Removal
by deleting their allegation of Plaintiff's citizenship
on information and belief.
second removal is permissible when made on new grounds
arising from subsequent pleadings or events. See Peabody
v. Maud Van Cortland Hill Schroll Trust, 892 F.2d 772,
776 (9th Cir. 1989); One Sylvan Rd. N. Assocs. v. Lark
Int'l, Ltd., 889 F.Supp. 60, 62-63 (D. Conn. 1995)
(“A defendant who fails in an attempt to remove on the
initial pleadings can file a second removal petition when
subsequent pleadings or events reveal a new and different
ground for removal.”) (emphasis added). However, a
party cannot remove a case twice based on the same grounds.
See Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of
Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988) (“a second
removal petition based on the same grounds does not
‘reinvest' the court's jurisdiction”).
Indeed, a second attempt at removal is justified only when
there has been a “substantial change in the nature of
the instant case since it was last in this court.”
One Sylvan, 889 F.Supp. at 64.
there has been no change in the nature of the case, and there
have not been any subsequent pleadings or papers which might
provide a basis for a second removal. The current Notice of
Removal merely deletes the “information and
belief” allegations concerning Plaintiff's
citizenship. Defendant's revised allegations are
insufficient to support a proper successive removal. They do
not constitute a new and different ground for removal and are
not based on a substantial change in the nature of the case
since it was last in this Court. As such, Defendant has
impermissibly attempted to remove this action twice on the
same grounds. Such successive removals are improper and
Court therefore concludes that Defendant's second Notice
of Removal is procedurally defective. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1446(b). Accordingly, the Court remands this action to
Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC645493.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The Court stays this
order until March 23, 2017. If Plaintiff wishes to remain in
federal court and thereby waive the ...