Holly Copsuey Gruber v. General Motors LLC

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs motion does not take issue with any ofthe contentions regarding jurisdiction □□□ forth in GM’s NOR. (See, generally, Dkt. 12, Motion). Instead, plaintiff merely contends that the court should remand the action “unless defendant meets its burden of proving that this court has removal jurisdiction.” (Id. at ECF 301); (see id. at ECF 301-05) (purporting to set forth statutory requirements for removal). Plaintiff otherwise makes no argument as to why GM's NOR is deficient.* (See, generally, id.). The court has reviewed the NOR, along with the Complaint, and finds that GM has demonstrated that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action based on diversity jurisdiction. With respect to diversity of citizenship, GM established that it is not a citizen of California, (see Dkt. 1, NOR at J] 12-14), and that for purposes of removal, plaintiff is a citizen of California. (See id. at J] 11) (noting allegation in Complaint that plaintiff is an individual residing in California); see Bradley Min. Co. v. Boice, 194 F.2d 80, 84 (9th Cir. 1951); 13E Charles Alan Wright

For example, an “antiremoval presumption” does not…