United States District Court, C.D. California
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE JOHN A. KRONSTADT, UNITED STATES
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND
ACTION TO STATE COURT (DKT. 18)
Langston (“Plaintiff”) brought this action in the
Los Angeles County Superior Court on January 30, 2018. Ex. A
to Notice of Removal, Complaint (“Compl.”), Dkt.
1-2 at 8-21. The Complaint advances five claims under the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act
(“FEHA”), Cal. Gov't Code §§ 12940
et seq. against T-Mobile US, Inc.
(“Defendant” or “T-Mobile”).
Id. These claims arise from Plaintiff's
former employment at T-Mobile, and the subsequent termination
from that employment. See generally id.
March 9, 2018, T-Mobile removed this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. Notice of Removal, Dkt. 1.
The removal was based on the claimed diversity of citizenship
between the parties, and an amount in controversy of more
than $75, 000. See Id. ¶ 3 (citing 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332). Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the Action.
Dkt. 18 (“Motion”). Defendant filed an opposition
to the Motion. Dkt. 22 (“Opposition”). Plaintiff
replied. Dkt. 24 (“Reply”).
the matter was one deemed appropriate for resolution without
a hearing pursuant to L.R. 7-15, it was taken under
submission. Dkt. 26. For the reasons stated in this Order,
the Motion is DENIED.
Allegations in the Complaint
Complaint alleges that, on June 10, 2002, Plaintiff was hired
by T-Mobile as an Account Executive. See Compl.,
Dkt. 1-2 ¶ 4. In 2009, Plaintiff alleges that he had a
significant anxiety attack. Id. ¶ 9. It is
alleged that, as a result, he suffered from physical and
mental disabilities, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
(“PTSD”). Id. ¶¶ 10-12.
Plaintiff's FEHA claims are based on T-Mobile's
alleged discrimination on the basis of these disabilities, as
well as its alleged failure to provide reasonable
accommodations. Id. ¶¶ 10-23. Plaintiff
alleges that T-Mobile terminated his employment on February
9, 2016. Id. ¶ 24.
Complaint does not quantify the amount of claimed damages.
However, Plaintiff does not contest that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75, 000. See Dkt. 18 at 6-7.
general, a civil action may be removed only if, at the time
of removal, it is one over which there is federal
jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Diversity
jurisdiction is presented when the amount in controversy
exceeds $75, 000 and the adverse parties are citizens of
different states. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441. Complete
diversity of citizenship is required, i.e.,
“the citizenship of each plaintiff [must be] different
from that of each defendant.” Hunter v. Philip
Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 2009).
federal courts are ones of limited jurisdiction, the removal
statute is to be strictly construed; any doubt about removal
is to be resolved in favor of remand. Gaus v. Miles,
Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, the
removing party has the burden of establishing that removal is
proper, including that there is federal jurisdiction over one
or more of the claims. Id.; see also Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).
“If a case is improperly removed, the federal court
must remand the action because it has no subject matter
jurisdiction to decide the case.” ARCO Envtl.
Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dep't of Health & Envtl.
Quality of Mont., 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000)
(internal citations omitted).