Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00414/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00414-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 49:14706 Carmack Amendment Interstate Commerce Act / Liab. of Carriers - Receipts &amp; Bills of Landing

---

1

19-CV-0414 W (AGS)

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

DENNIS BUSCH,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF 

AMERICA, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19-CV-0414 W (AGS)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO REMAND [DOC. 7]

Defendant United Parcel Service of America, Inc. (“UPS”) removed this case from 

the San Diego Superior Court on March 1, 2019. (Notice of Removal [Doc. 1].) Plaintiff

now moves to remand. (Pl.’s Mot. [Doc. 7].) The Court decides the matters on the 

papers submitted and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For 

the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. 

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:19-cv-00414-W-AGS Document 11 Filed 05/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

19-CV-0414 W (AGS)

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. BACKGROUND

On January 22, 2019, Plaintiff commenced this action in San Diego Superior Court 

against UPS, BJT Investments, Inc. (“BJT”), and Rodrigo Nicolau. (Compl. [Doc. 1-1, 

Exh. A].) The Complaint alleged that Nicolau and BJT had prepared a shipping label for 

Plaintiff’s paintings—to be shipped via UPS. (See id.) The paintings were allegedly lost 

in transit. (See id.)

The Complaint alleged: (1) violation of 49 U.S.C. § 14706 against UPS; (2) 

ratification of theft of parcel against UPS; (3) violation of California Commercial Code § 

7309 against BJT and Nicolau; and (4) negligence against BJT and Nicolau. (Compl.

[Doc. 1-1, Exh. A].) 

On March 1, 2019, UPS removed the action to this Court on the basis of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1331 and §1337. (Notice of Removal [Doc. 1].) On April 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed a 

motion to remand, with a hearing date of May 13, 2019. (Mot. to Remand [Doc. 7].) On 

April 19, 2019, Plaintiff and UPS filed a joint motion to refer Plaintiff’s claims against 

UPS to arbitration, and to stay Plaintiff’s claims against UPS pending the subsequent 

dismissal of UPS. (Joint Mot. [Doc. 8].) The Court granted that motion on April 22, 

2019. (Apr. 22, 2019 Order [Doc. 10].) The claims against UPS are stayed pending a 

dismissal of UPS, but UPS has not yet been dismissed.

For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s motion to remand will be denied.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising 

under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

“ ‘Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power 

authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial 

decree.’ ” In re Hunter, 66 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Kokkonen v. 

Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)).

Case 3:19-cv-00414-W-AGS Document 11 Filed 05/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

19-CV-0414 W (AGS)

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

The party seeking to invoke removal jurisdiction bears the burden of supporting its 

jurisdictional allegations with competent proof. See Gaus v. Miles. Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 

566–67 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam); Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 

(9th Cir. 1988). “The propriety of removal . . . depends on whether the case originally 

could have been filed in federal court.” Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 

522 U.S. 156, 163 (1997); see 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

There is a “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction, and the defendant 

always bears the burden of establishing the propriety of removal. See Gaus, 980 F.2d at 

566 (internal quotation omitted); Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Associates, 903 

F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990) (internal citation omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Remand

Plaintiff’s motion to remand is based on the premise that “[u]pon dismissal of 

UPS, the remaining action lacks diversity.” (Mot. to Remand [Doc. 7-1] 2.) It would 

seem that Plaintiff plans to seek the dismissal of UPS from this action, and that he 

believes this will destroy the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the case. 

UPS has not yet been dismissed. To the extent the Motion to Remand itself is 

intended as a mechanism by which to dismiss UPS from this action, no request for such 

relief appears in the caption or the Notice of Motion. 

Plaintiff does not demonstrate the absence of subject matter jurisdiction. The 

motion to remand will be denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:19-cv-00414-W-AGS Document 11 Filed 05/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

19-CV-0414 W (AGS)

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

IV. CONCLUSION & ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED. [Doc. 7.] 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00414-W-AGS Document 11 Filed 05/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4