Morris v. Das

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 MARIA T. MORRIS et al., Case No.: 22cv1863-L-AHG 13 Plaintiffs, ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO 14 v. STATE COURT 15 SUJATA GUHAROY DAS Personal Representative of THE ESTATE OF 16 SUGATA DAS, Deceased, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 Defendants removed this wrongful death action from State court pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. §§1332 and 1441. For the reasons stated below, the action is remanded. 21 "Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power 22 authorized by Constitution or statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree. It is 23 to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of 24 establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction." Kokkonen v. 25 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).1 Consistent with the limited 26 27 1 Unless stated otherwise, internal ellipses, brackets, citations, and quotation marks 28 1 jurisdiction of federal courts, the removal statute is strictly construed against removal. 2 Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The burden of establishing 3 removal jurisdiction is on the removing party. See Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. 4 Co., 443 F.3d 676, 682-85 (9th Cir. 2006). 5 “[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the 6 United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed ... .” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 7 Defendants’ notice of removal is based on 28 U.S.C. §1332. Under section 1332(a), 8 original jurisdiction exists in cases where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and 9 the case is "between citizens of different states." To meet the requirement of diversity of 10 citizenship, Defendants must show "complete diversity of citizenship." Caterpillar, Inc. 11 v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). This requirement is met when "the citizenship of each 12 plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant." Id. 13 The removing party is required to allege diversity, which includes "alleg[ing] 14 affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties." Kanter v. Warner-Lambert, 15 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). Defendants allege that “Defendant Samarth Aviation, 16 LLC was and is an Arizona limited liability company, with its principal place of business 17 in Phoenix, Arizona.” (Notice of Removal, ECF no. 1, ¶ 8; see also id. ¶¶ 1, 11(a).) 18 Because Samarth Aviation, LLC is a limited liability company, its citizenship is 19 determined by examining the citizenship of each of its members. Carden v. Arkoma 20 Assoc., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990); Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage. L.P., 21 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). The Notice of Removal does not provide any 22 information regarding the membership of Samarth Aviation, LLC. Accordingly, 23 Defendants have not met their burden affirmatively to allege the citizenship of all parties. 24 The Notice of Removal fails to establish federal jurisdiction. 25 / / / / 26 27 28 1 "If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject 2 || matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). This action is 3 || therefore remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 || Dated: December 2, 2022 : 1 fee fp 8 H . James Lorenz, 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28