CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 20-1979 PA (SHKx) Date September 29, 2020 Title Christina Capper v. G4S Secure Solutions USA, Inc. Present: The Honorable PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Gabriela Garcia Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: None None Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER The Court is in receipt of a Notice of Removal filed by defendant G4S Secure Solutions USA, Inc. (“Defendant”). (Dkt. 1 (“Removal”).) The Notice of Removal alleges the Court possesses diversity jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Id. at ¶12.) Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A suit filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “The removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls to the party invoking the statute.” California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988)). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish citizenship for diversity purposes, a natural person must be a citizen of the United States and be domiciled in a particular state. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1983). Persons are domiciled in the places they reside with the intent to remain or to which they intend to return. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). The Notice of Removal states in relevant part: “Plaintiff alleges that she is an individual residing in the state of California. (Ex. A, Complaint, ¶ 2.) Therefore, based on Plaintiff’s Complaint, G4S in good faith believes that Plaintiff is and was a citizen of the state of California when this action was filed in state court, at the time of removal, and at all other relevant times, and is therefore a citizen of California within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).” (Removal ¶15.) But Paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s complaint only alleges that Plaintiff “was a resident of the County of Riverside, State of California.” (Id. at Ex. A at ¶2.) Residence is not necessarily the same as domicile. Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857 (“A person residing in a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not necessarily a citizen of that state.”). “Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.” Id. Without more,

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 20-1979 PA (SHKx) Date September 29, 2020 Title Christina Capper v. G4S Secure Solutions USA, Inc. For these reasons, the Court concludes that Defendant has not met the burden of showing this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. This action is therefore remanded to the Superior Court of California for the County of Riverside, Case No. RIC2002220, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED.