From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Urbano v. SMG Holdings, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California
Apr 6, 2015
CV 15-00603 MMM (MRWx) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2015)

Opinion


Oscar Urbano v. SMG Holdings, Inc., et al No. CV 15-00603 MMM (MRWx) United States District Court, C.D. California April 6, 2015

Proceedings: Order to Show Cause Why Case Should Not Be Remanded for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Honorable MARGARET M. MORROW.

The right to remove a case to federal court is entirely a creature of statute. See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979). The removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, allows defendants to remove when a case originally filed in state court involves a federal question or is between citizens of different states and involves an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § § 1441(a), (b). Only state court actions that could originally have been filed in federal court can be removed. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (" Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending"); see Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987); Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988).

The Ninth Circuit " strictly construe[s] the removal statute against removal jurisdiction, " and " [f]ederal 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) (citing Boggs v. Lewis, 863 F.2d 662, 663 (9th Cir. 1988), Takeda v. Northwestern Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 818 (9th Cir. 1985), and Libhart, 592 F.2d at 1064). " The 'strong presumption' against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper." Id. (citing Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1990), and Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988)).

In the present case, the pleadings do not appear to establish that the court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case. Specifically, the court notes the following deficiencies:

The pleadings do not adequately show that the court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. X The pleadings do not adequately show that the court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Specifically, the pleadings fail to show that:

X The amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000 (28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2))..

Accordingly, the court orders defendant to show cause in writing on or before April 13, 2015 why this action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If defendant responds to this order to show cause, plaintiff may file a reply on or before April 20, 2015. Should defendant fail to respond to this order to show cause by April 13, 2015, the court will remand the case to state court forthwith.


Summaries of

Urbano v. SMG Holdings, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California
Apr 6, 2015
CV 15-00603 MMM (MRWx) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2015)
Case details for

Urbano v. SMG Holdings, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Oscar Urbano v. SMG Holdings, Inc., et al

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California

Date published: Apr 6, 2015

Citations

CV 15-00603 MMM (MRWx) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2015)