United States District Court, C.D. California
Present: The Honorable PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER
the Court is a Notice of Removal filed by defendant JPMorgan
Chase Bank, N.A. (“Defendant”). Defendant asserts
that this Court has jurisdiction over the action brought
against it by plaintiff Linda Castellucci
(“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). For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a
national bank is “a citizen of the State in which its
main office, as set forth in its articles of association, is
located.” Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S.
303, 307, 126 S.Ct. 941, 945, 163 L.Ed.2d 797 (2006)
(construing 28 U.S.C. § 1348).
effort to establish the Court's diversity jurisdiction,
Defendant's Notice of Removal alleges:
“For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a person is a
citizen of the state in which he or she is domiciled.
Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826,
828 (1989). “[D]omicile is established by physical
presence in a place in connection with a certain state of
mind concerning one's intent to remain there.”
Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S.
30, 48 (1989). Plaintiffs are “individuals residing in
the Country of Los Angeles, State of California” (Ex.
B, ¶ Compl. para 1). As a result, Plaintiff is a citizen
of California for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.
(Notice of Removal ¶ 3.) As the Notice of Removal
alleges, Defendant's support for its allegations
concerning Plaintiff's citizenship relies solely on,
relies solely on paragraphs 1of the Complaint that Plaintiff
filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court. That paragraph of
Plaintiff's Complaint alleges only Plaintiff's
residence, and does not allege Plaintiff's state of
domicile or citizenship. Because an individual is not
necessarily domiciled where he or she resides,
Defendant's allegations of Plaintiff's citizenship
are insufficient to establish their citizenship.
“Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to
invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege
affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant
parties.” Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857;
Bradford v. Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines, 217 F.Supp.
525, 527 (N.D. Cal. 1963) (“A petition [for removal]
alleging diversity of citizenship upon information and belief
is insufficient.”). As a result, Defendant's
allegations are insufficient to invoke this Court's
foregoing reasons, Defendant has failed to satisfy its burden
of showing that diversity jurisdiction exists over this
action. Accordingly, this action is hereby remanded to Los
Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 19STCV31681, for ...