United States District Court, C.D. California
Present: The Honorable PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER
Court is in receipt of a Notice of Removal filed by
defendants Management Services, Inc. and Delaware North
Companies Travel Hospitality Services Inc.
(“Defendants”). (Docket No. 1.) The Notice
alleges the Court possesses diversity jurisdiction over this
action pursuant to 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 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (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). “The removal statute is strictly
construed against removal jurisdiction, and the burden of
establishing federal jurisdiction falls to the party invoking
the statute.” California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy,
Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing
Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393
(9th Cir. 1988)). “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). “The Defendant also has
the burden of showing that it has complied with the
procedural requirements for removal.” Riggs v.
Plaid Pantries, Inc., 233 F.Supp.2d 1260, 1264 (D. Or.
2001) (citing Schwartz v. FHP Int'l Corp., 947
F.Supp. 1354, 1360 (D. Ariz. 1996)). These procedures include
a requirement that the “notice of removal of a civil
action or proceeding shall be filed within 30 days after the
receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a
copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for
relief upon which such action or proceeding is based.”
28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).
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). Here, the Notice of Removal states:
At the time Plaintiff filed this civil action, Defendants
allege based on information and belief that Plaintiff was a
citizen and resident of the State of California. Plaintiff
alleges in the Complaint that she “was formerly
employed by the defendants at LAX as Assistant General
Manager.” (Compl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff was employed by
Delaware North within the State of California from
approximately July 2, 2018, until October 25, 2018. (Compl.
¶¶ 15, 31.) Delaware North alleges that
Plaintiff's home address during the period when she
worked at Delaware North was within the State of California.
(Declaration of Lili Galicia [“Galicia Dec.”]
¶ 3.) Delaware North alleges that there are no documents
in Plaintiff's personnel file to suggest in any way that
she is currently, or during the periods of her employment
was, a resident or citizen of any state other than
California. (Galicia Dec. ¶ 3.)
(Docket No. 1 ¶8.) Plaintiff's residence in
California during a three-month period is insufficient to
establish that Plaintiff is actually a citizen of California.
Residence is not necessarily the same as domicile.
Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857 (“A person residing in
a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is
not necessarily a citizen of that state.”). Defendants
have not adequately alleged Plaintiff's intent to remain
in California and thus have not adequately alleged
Plaintiff's citizenship. Id. (“Absent
unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity
jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the
actual citizenship of the relevant parties.”).
these reasons, the Court concludes that Defendants have not
met the burden of showing this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. This action is
therefore remanded to the Superior Court of California for
the County of Los Angeles, No. ...