Simin Bakian v. Starbucks Corporation

Good Law
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaDecember 14, 20238:23-cv-02306California1,213 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. Background

Plaintiff alleges that, while at Starbucks, “hot coffee spilled over her when [she] was handed the coffee.” Notice of Removal (“Notice” or “Not.”) (Dkt. 1) at 2. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in State Court, seeking pain and suffering, property damages, loss of earning capacity, and costs. Id. Defendant Starbucks Corporation (“Starbucks”) removed this case to federal court, asserting that this Court has diversity jurisdiction.

II. Legal Standard

“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Removal of a case from state court to federal court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441, which provides in relevant part that “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed . . . to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:23-cv-02306-DOC-KESx Date: December 14, 2023

Page

pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441. This statute “is strictly construed against removal…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.