United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS [DOC. NO. 18]
VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
April 28, 2017, Plaintiff Anthony Guytan filed a motion to
remand to California Superior Court for the County of San
Bernardino. (Doc. No. 14.) On May 15, 2017, Defendants Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, Swift Transportation
Services, LLC, Swift Transportation Co., Inc., and Swift
Transportation Company filed an opposition and requested
sanctions against Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 18.) On May 22, 2017,
Plaintiff filed a reply. (Doc. No. 19.)
matter is appropriate for resolution without hearing pursuant
to Local Rule 7-15 and will stand submitted on the papers
timely filed. Having considered the papers filed in support
of and in opposition to the motion, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff's motion. In addition, the Court DENIES
Defendants' request for sanctions.
February 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint in California
Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino against
Defendants Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, Swift
Transportation Services, LLC, Swift Transportation Co., Inc.,
Swift Transportation Company, and Does 1 through 100. (Doc.
No. 1-1.) The complaint alleges several claims against
Defendants, including violations of California's Fair
Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Family
Rights Act, Labor Code, public policy, and common law.
March 31, 2017, Defendants filed a notice of removal, which
asserted that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this
matter because (1) Plaintiff is a citizen of California, the
named Defendants are citizens of Delaware and Arizona, and
Courts should disregard the citizenship of fictitious
Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); and (2) the
amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000. (Doc. No. 1.)
Plaintiff filed the present motion to remand on April 28,
2017. (Doc. No. 14.)
MOTION TO REMAND
motion for remand lies where there is no diversity of
citizenship, or the claim does not in fact ‘arise
under' federal law.” Cal. Prac. Guide Fed. Civ.
Pro. Before Trial Ch. 2D-10; Int'l Primate Prot.
League v. Adm'rs of Tulane Ed. Fund, 500 U.S. 72, 87
(1991). “The ‘strong presumption' against
removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the
burden of establishing that removal is proper.”
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.
civil cases, subject matter jurisdiction is generally
conferred upon federal district courts either through
diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or federal
question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.”
Peralta v. Hispanic Bus., Inc., 419 F.3d 1064, 1069
(9th Cir. 2005). The burden of establishing jurisdiction
rests on the Plaintiff as the party asserting jurisdiction.
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.
375, 377 (1994). A party may invoke the Court's diversity
jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, in “all
civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds . . .
$75, 000 . . . and is between [c]itizens of different
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Where
subject-matter jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. §
1332, complete diversity of citizenship is required. Owen
Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373
(1978). In other words, a court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction “unless each defendant is a citizen of a
different State from each plaintiff.” Id. For
the purpose of establishing diversity jurisdiction, a
corporation is a citizen of both the state in which it is
incorporated and the state in which it maintains its
principal place of business. See 28 U.S.C. §
should “strictly construe the removal statute against
removal jurisdiction.” Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566.
“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any
doubt as to the right of removal in the first
Violation of Local Rule 7-3
Local Rule 7-3, “counsel contemplating the filing of
any motion shall first contact opposing counsel to discuss
thoroughly, preferably in person, the substance of the
contemplated motion and any potential resolution.” L.R.
7-3 (emphasis in original). The conference “shall take
place at least seven (7) days prior to the filing of the
motion.” Id. If a resolution cannot be
reached, the moving party shall state in its notice of motion
the date on which the conference of counsel under Local Rule
7-3 took place. Id.
counsel did not meet and confer with defense counsel before
filing his motion to remand. The Court could deny
Plaintiff's motion for that reason alone. See,
e.g., Singer v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc.,
No. SACV 11-0427 DOC (MLGx), 2012 WL 123146, at *2 (C.D. Cal.
Jan. 13, 2012); Superbalife, Int'l v. Powerpay,
No. CV 08-5099 PSG, 2008 WL 4559752, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7,
2008). Even ...