Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01303/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01303-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

JOSEPH STELLA,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE HERTZ CORPORATION,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 13-cv-1303-L(WVG)

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO

STATE COURT

On November 29, 2012, Plaintiff Joseph Stella commenced this class action against their

employer, Defendant The Hertz Corporation, in the Alameda Superior Court. Plaintiff asserts

five causes of action arising out of her employment with Defendant. On January 4, 2013,

Defendant filed a notice of removal, removing this action to federal district court in the Northern

District of California. The notice of removal is based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1332 and 1441. The Northern District subsequently transferred this action to this Court.

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

deficient and REMANDS this action to the Alameda Superior Court.

//

//

13cv1303

Case 3:13-cv-01303-L-WVG Document 29 Filed 06/06/13 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)).

II. ANALYSIS

The Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) applies to “class actions,” which the statute

specifically defines as “any civil action filed under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil

2 13cv1303

Case 3:13-cv-01303-L-WVG Document 29 Filed 06/06/13 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

Procedure or similar State statute or rule of judicial procedure authorizing an action to be

brought by 1 or more representative persons as a class action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(1)(B). “As

a threshold matter, CAFA applies to ‘class action’ lawsuits where the aggregate number of

members of all proposed plaintiff classes is 100 or more persons and where the primary

defendants are not ‘States, State officials, or other governmental entities against whom the

district court may be foreclosed from ordering relief.’” Serrano v. 180 Connect, Inc., 478 F.3d

1018, 1020 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5)). “Once the prerequisites of §

1332(d)(5) are satisfied, CAFA vests federal courts with ‘original’ diversity jurisdiction over

class actions if: (1) the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, and (2) any class

member is a citizen of a state different from any defendant.” Id. at 1020-21 (citing 28 U.S.C. §

1332(d)(2)).

After a plaintiff files an action in state court, the defendant must allege and bear the

burden of proof that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. See Abrego Abrego v. Dow

Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 685 (9th Cir. 2006). Mere conclusory allegations are insufficient. 

Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). The defendant must set

forth, in the removal petition itself, the underlying facts supporting its assertion that the amount

in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. See Abrego Abrego, 443 F.3d at 689.

Here, Plaintiff alleges that there are “more than 2,000 current and former employees in

the Class.” (Compl. ¶ 10.) That satisfies the threshold matter requiring that the class action

include an aggregate number of members of all proposed plaintiff classes be 100 or more

persons. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5). Thus, CAFA applies to this action. See id. However,

Defendant fails to address whether the amount in controversy satisfies the CAFA’s $5,000,000

jurisdictional threshold. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). Rather, Defendant only addresses the

$75,000 jurisdictional limit that does not apply here. (See Removal Notice ¶¶ 12–22.) 

Therefore, Defendant fails to provide any explanation whatsoever to justify finding that it has

satisfied the $5,000,000 amount-in-controversy requirement under CAFA.

//

//

3 13cv1303

Case 3:13-cv-01303-L-WVG Document 29 Filed 06/06/13 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

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 here in the

notice of removal do not meet the burden of establishing removal jurisdiction. Therefore, the

Court REMANDS this action to the Alameda Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 5, 2013

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. WILLIAM V. GALLO

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

4 13cv1303

Case 3:13-cv-01303-L-WVG Document 29 Filed 06/06/13 Page 4 of 4