United States District Court, C.D. California
Present: The Honorable JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES
Proceedings: Order (1) DENYING Plaintiff Crystal Moore's
Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 11.); and (2) VACATING the hearing
on July 24, 2017 (IN CHAMBERS)
the Court is a Motion to Remand by Plaintiff Crystal Moore
(“Plaintiff”) (Dkt. No. 11.) The Court finds this
matter appropriate for resolution without a hearing.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; L.R. 7-15. After consideration
of the papers filed in support of, and in opposition to the
motion, the Court DENIES the motion.
February 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint against
Defendants CVS Health Corporation, CVS Pharmacy, Inc.,
Garfield Beach CVS, LLC No. 9698, and Does 1-60 (collectively
“Defendants”) in the Superior Court of the State
of California County of San Bernardino. (“Complaint,
” Dkt. No. 1-1.) The Complaint alleged a single cause
of action for negligence. (Id.) Defendants removed
the action to this Court on May 8, 2017. (Dkt. No. 1.)
moved to remand the case on June 5, 2017. (“Motion,
” Dkt. No. 11.) Defendant opposed the Motion on June
27, 2017. (“Opposition, ” Dkt. No. 12.) Plaintiff
replied on July 6, 2017. (“Reply, ” Dkt. No. 13.)
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only
that power authorized by the Constitution and statute.”
Gunn v. Minton, 133 S.Ct. 1059, 1064 (2013)
(internal citations omitted). As such, federal courts only
have original jurisdiction over civil actions in which a
federal question exists (federal question jurisdiction) or
where there is complete diversity of citizenship between the
parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000
(diversity jurisdiction). 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.
right of removal is entirely a creature of statute and a suit
commenced in a state court must remain there until cause is
shown for its transfer under some act of Congress.”
Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32
(2002) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Where Congress has acted to create a right of removal, those
statutes are strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.
Id.; Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d
661, 667 (9th Cir. 2012). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a),
“[a] suit filed in state court may be removed to
federal court if the federal court would have had original
jurisdiction over the suit.” Yad Abraham, LLC v.
Disruptive Tech, Ltd., No. CV 17-4771 PA (AFMx), 2017
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103760 (C.D. Cal. July 3, 2017). “If
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).
“The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction
means that the defendant always has the burden of
establishing that removal is proper.” Kotulski v.
FCA U.S. LLC, No. 17-CV-0527-AJB-BGS, 2017 W.L 2705429
at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 23, 2017) (quoting Gaus v. Miles,
Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
challenges Defendants' removal, contending the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this matter because
neither diversity jurisdiction nor federal question
jurisdiction exist. (Mot. at 3-5.) As such, Plaintiff asserts
the case must be remanded to the Superior Court for the
County of San Bernardino. (Id. at 3.)
Federal Question Jurisdiction
determining federal question jurisdiction, the well-pleaded
complaint rule ‘provides that federal jurisdiction
exists only when a federal question is presented on the face
of the plaintiff's properly pleaded
complaint.'” Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA,
582 F.3d at 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Fisher v.
NOS Commc'ns (In re NOS Commc'ns), 495
F.3d 1052, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007)). To establish federal
question jurisdiction, Plaintiff must show through its
“‘well-pleaded complaint . . . . that federal law
creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right
to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial
question of federal law.'” Proctor v. Vishay
Intertech. Inc., 584 F.3d 1208, 1219 (9th Cir. 2009)
(quoting Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v.
McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 689-90 (2006)).
Plaintiff's Complaint clearly states that it is
“properly pleaded” and is “purely a
state-law cause of action” not intending to invoke
federal question jurisdiction under § 1331. (Reply at
5.) The Court agrees the Complaint asserts a single cause of
action for negligence -a state law claim. Because the claim
arises under state law and does not ...