Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01673/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01673-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BILLY CRAFTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 13-cv-1673-L(JMA)

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO

STATE COURT

On July 27, 2012, Plaintiff Billy Crafton commenced this action against John Doe

defendants in the San Diego Superior Court. Plaintiff alleges six claims arising from Twitter

accounts that used his name and photo that impersonated Plaintiff without consent. On June 19,

2013, Plaintiff served Defendant Fred Wray with the complaint. Thereafter, Defendant filed a

notice of removal, removing this action to this Court. The notice of removal is based on

diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441.

For the following reasons, the Court finds that Defendant’s Notice of Removal is facially

deficient and REMANDS this action to the San Diego Superior Court.

//

//

13cv1673

Case 3:13-cv-01673-L-JMA Document 2 Filed 07/18/13 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of

Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “They possess only that power authorized by Constitution or a

statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Id. (internal citations omitted). “It is to

be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction and the burden of establishing the

contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Id. (internal citations omitted); see also

Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Consistent with the limited jurisdiction of federal courts, the removal statute is strictly

construed against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992);

see also Sygenta Crop Prot. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002); O’Halloran v. University of

Wash., 856 F.2d 1375, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). “The strong presumption against removal

jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is

proper.” Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566; see also Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assoc., 903 F.2d

709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990); O’Halloran, 856 F.2d at 1380. “Federal jurisdiction must be

rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus, 980 F.2d at

566. 

Although there has not been a request to remand, it is well-established that “a district

court’s duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction is not contingent upon the parties’

arguments.” See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966 (9th

Cir. 2004). Courts may consider the issue sua sponte. Demery v. Kupperman, 735 F.2d 1139,

1149 n.8 (9th Cir. 1984). Indeed, the Supreme Court has emphasized that “district courts have

an ‘independent obligation to address subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte.’” Grupo Dataflux v.

Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004) (quoting United States v. S. Cal. Edison Co.,

300 F. Supp. 2d 964, 972 (E.D. Cal. 2004)).

//

//

//

//

2 13cv1673

Case 3:13-cv-01673-L-JMA Document 2 Filed 07/18/13 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

II. ANALYSIS

In attempting to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, the defendant must prove that

there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and that the amount in controversy

exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. To determine whether the amount in controversy has been

met on removal, “[t]he district court may consider whether it is ‘facially apparent’ from the

complaint that the jurisdictional amount is in controversy.” Singer v. State Farm Mutual Auto

Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997). And the defendant “must provide evidence that it is

‘more likely than not’ that the amount in controversy” satisfies the federal diversity jurisdictional

amount requirement. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Defendant fails to satisfy that requirement. See 42 U.S.C. § 1332.

Here, Plaintiff seeks general and special damages no less than $25,000, and “[p]unitive

damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants for their wrongful conduct and set an

example for others.” (Compl. Prayer.) He also seeks compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees

and costs, pre-judgment interest, declaratory judgment, and other injunctive relief. (Id.) 

However, a precise value for the amount in controversy is not given. 

In his notice of removal, Defendant states that “[t]he amount in controversy in this action

exceeds the value of $75,000, exclusive interest and costs.” (Notice of Removal ¶ 8.) Nothing

further is provided. Defendant does not direct the Court’s attention to any evidence or

allegations in the complaint that would support this conclusion. He does not even explain how

or why the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. This bare assertion without any support

whatsoever is wholly inadequate.

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER

“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). The facts presented in the notice

of removal do not meet the burden of establishing removal jurisdiction. There is no value given

for the amount in controversy and no explanation of how Defendant reached its conclusion that

the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Therefore, the Court REMANDS this action to the

3 13cv1673

Case 3:13-cv-01673-L-JMA Document 2 Filed 07/18/13 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

San Diego Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 18, 2013

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. JAN. M. ADLER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

4 13cv1673

Case 3:13-cv-01673-L-JMA Document 2 Filed 07/18/13 Page 4 of 4