1 2 3 4 5 6

JS-6

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY SANFORD, individually, and ) Case No. CV 24-9073 FMO (AJRx) on behalf of all others similarly situated, ) 12 ) Plaintiff, ) 13 ) ORDER REMANDING ACTION v. ) 14 )

HASKEL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, )

15 ) Defendant. ) 16 ) 17 18 On August 20, 2024, Anthony Sanford (“plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in the Los Angeles 19 County Superior Court against Haskel International, LLC (“defendant”) asserting state law claims 20 relating to his employment. (See Dkt. 1, Notice of Removal (“NOR”) ¶ 1); (id., Exh. A, Complaint 21 at ¶¶ 30-94). On October 21, 2024, defendant removed that action on diversity jurisdiction 22 grounds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 1441, and 1446. (See Dkt. 1, NOR at 1-2). Having 23 reviewed the pleadings, the court hereby remands this action to state court for lack of subject 24 matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 25 LEGAL STANDARD 26 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized 27 by Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 28 S.Ct. 1673, 1675 (1994). The courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears 1| affirmatively from the record. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n. 3, 126 2| S.Ct. 1854, 1861 n. 3 (2006). Federal courts have a duty to examine jurisdiction sua sponte 3] before proceeding to the merits of a case, see Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 4] 119S.Ct. 1563, 1569 (1999), “even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 1244 (2006). 6 “Under the plain terms of § 1441 (a), in order properly to remove [an] action pursuant to that provision, [the removing defendant] must demonstrate that original subject-matter jurisdiction lies in the federal courts.” Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 33, 123 S.Ct. 366, 370 (2002); Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) 10 || (noting the “longstanding, near-canonical rule that the burden on removal rests with the removing defendant’); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (“The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that 13 | removal is proper.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). If there is any doubt regarding the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, the court must resolve those doubts in favor of remanding 15|| the action to state court.’ See Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”). 17 DISCUSSION 18 The court's review of the NOR and the attached Complaint makes clear that the court does 19 || not have subject matter jurisdiction over the instant matter. In other words, plaintiff could not have 20 | originally brought this action in federal court, as plaintiff does not competently allege facts supplying diversity jurisdiction.2, Therefore, removal was improper. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); 22 23 An “antiremoval presumption” does not exist in cases removed pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. 24! Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89, 135 S.Ct. 547, 554 (2014). 26 * Although defendant notes that the action was filed as a class action, (see Dkt. 1, NOR at 26 | I 13-14), it seeks only to invoke the court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (See Dkt. 1, NOR at 12-14) (contending the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy 27 || exceeds $75,000). In class action litigation, diversity jurisdiction is established where at least one class member is diverse from the defendant and no named plaintiff is non-diverse, see Snyder v. Harris, 394 U.S. 332, 339-40, 89 S.Ct. 1053, 1058-59 (1969) (“[I]f one member of a class is of 95

1| Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 2429 (1987) (“Only state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by 3|| the defendant.”). 4 Defendant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 6] 1117 (9th Cir. 2004); Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 7 || 2003) (per curiam) (“Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is in controversy, the removing party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold. Where doubt regarding the right to 10 || removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court.”) (footnote omitted). Here, there is no basis for diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy does not appear to exceed the 12|| diversity jurisdiction threshold of $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).° 13 As an initial matter, the amount of damages plaintiff seeks cannot be determined from the Complaint, as the Complaint does not set forth a specific amount. (See, generally, Dkt. 1, Exh. 15 || A, Complaint). For the most part, defendant essentially cites to plaintiff's requested forms of relief 16 || as proof, ipso facto, that the amount plaintiff seeks meets the amount in controversy requirement. (See Dkt. 1, NOR at J 14.).. Such unsubstantiated assertions cannot satisfy the amount in controversy requirement of § 1332(a). See, e.g., Gaus, 980 F.2d at 567 (remanding for lack of diversity jurisdiction where defendant “offered no facts whatsoever. . . . [to] overcome[] the strong 20 diverse citizenship from the class’ opponent, and no nondiverse members are named parties, the suit may be brought in federal court even though all other members of the class are citizens of the same State as the defendant[.]”); Serrano v. 180 Connect, Inc., 478 F.3d 1018, 1021 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2007), and at least one of the named plaintiffs meets the amount in controversy requirement. See 23 | Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 549 & 566-67, 125 S.Ct. 2611, 2615 & 2625 (2005) (“[W]here the other elements of jurisdiction are present and at least one named 24 plaintiff in the action satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement, [28 U.S.C.] § 1367 [] 25 authorize[s] supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of other plaintiffs in the same Article III case or controversy, even if those claims are for less than the jurisdictional amount.”). 26 > In relevant part, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) provides that a district court has diversity jurisdiction “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, . . . and is between... citizens of different States” or “citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state[.]” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a)(1)-(2).

1 presumption against removal jurisdiction, [and did not] satisf[y defendant’s] burden of setting forth 2 . . . the underlying facts supporting its assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds 3 $[75],000”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original). 4 In sum, given that any doubt regarding the existence of subject matter jurisdiction must be 5 resolved in favor of remanding the action, see Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566, the court is not persuaded, 6 under the circumstances here, that defendant has met its burden of showing by a preponderance 7 of the evidence that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold. See Matheson, 8 319 F.3d at 1090 (“Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is 9 in controversy, the removing party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 10 amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold. Where doubt regarding the right to 11 removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court.”) (footnote omitted); Valdez, 372 F.3d 12 at 1117. 13 This order is not intended for publication. Nor is it intended to be included in or 14 submitted to any online service such as Westlaw or Lexis. 15 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that: 16 1. The above-captioned action shall be remanded to the Superior Court of the State of 17 California, County of Los Angeles, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1447(c). 19 2. The Clerk shall send a certified copy of this Order to the state court. 20 Dated this 12th day of November, 2024. 21 /s/ Fernando M. Olguin 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28