UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT js-6

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL

Case No. CV 20-1921-JFW(PLAx) Date: March 17, 2020 Title: Julie Mathis -v- Brew PR LLC, et al.

PRESENT:

HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Shannon Reilly None Present Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:

None None

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES

SUPERIOR COURT

On January 17, 2020, Plaintiff Julie Mathis (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court against Defendants Brew PR LLC (“Brew”) and Freuds, Inc. (erroneously sued as “Freuds”) (“Freuds”) (collectively, “Defendants”). On February 27, 2020, Defendants filed their Notice of Removal, alleging this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See Bender v. Williamsport Area School District, 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). “Because of the Congressional purpose to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts on removal, the statute is strictly construed, and federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations and quotations omitted). There is a strong presumption that the Court is without jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears. See Fifty Associates v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 446 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1990). As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, Defendants bear the burden of demonstrating that removal is proper. See, e.g., Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992); Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). Diversity jurisdiction founded under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) requires that (1) all plaintiffs be of different citizenship than all defendants, and (2) the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. In their Notice of Removal, Defendants conclude that Plaintiff is a citizen of California because her Complaint alleges that she is a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California. However, “the diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, speaks of citizenship, not of residency.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). To be a citizen of a state, a natural person must be a citizen of the United States and be domiciled in a particular state. Id. Persons are domiciled in the places they reside with the intent to remain or to which they intend to return. Id. “A person residing in a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not necessarily a citizen of that state.” Id. Because neither the “four corners” of the Complaint nor the Notice of Removal contain sufficient allegations concerning Plaintiff’s citizenship, Defendants have failed to meet their burden to establish that diversity jurisdiction exists. See Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 694 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, this action is REMANDED to Los Angeles Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED.