Jeramie Abbott v. International Vitamin Corporation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California 10 Western Division 11 12 JERAMIE ABBOTT, CV 19-01941 TJH (KKx)

13 Plaintiff, 14 v. Order 15 INTERNATIONAL VITAMIN

CORPORATION,

16 Defendant. 17 18 19 20 21 The Court has considered Plaintiff Jeramie Abbott’s motion to remand, together 22 with the moving and opposing papers. 23 Defendant International Vitamin Corporation [“IVC”] , as the party invoking the 24 Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, has the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a 25 preponderance of the evidence. Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, 728 F.3d 26 975, 981 (9th Cir. 2013). Initially, a defendant may rely on the allegations in its notice 27 of removal to satisfy the jurisdictional burden. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., 28 LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 88 (2014). However, because Abbott has challenged the 1 || allegations in IVC’s notice of removal by filing his motion to remand, IVC must submit 2 || evidence to support its alleged basis for jurisdiction. See Dart Cherokee, 574 U.S. 81 3 || at 88. …