Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00138/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00138-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

- 1 - 11cv138

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEX SANTANA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-138 JLS (CAB)

ORDER: DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO REMAND TO

STATE COURT

(Doc. No. 5)

vs.

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF

AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Alex Santana’s motion to remand to state court and for

award of costs and fees. (Doc. No. 5.) Also before the Court is Defendant Corrections Corporation

of America’s (CCA) opposition. (Doc. No. 9.) Having considered the parties’ arguments and the law,

the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to remand.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this action for negligence and negligent supervision in the Superior Court of

California for the County of San Diego on October 26, 2010. (Doc. No. 1, at Ex. A (Compl.).) On

January 21, 2011, Defendant removed the case to this Court. (Doc. No. 1 (Notice of Removal).)

Defendant alleges that this action is removable under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441(b) because “the

matter in controversy exceeds $75,000 and Corrections Corporation of America is not a California

resident.” (Id. ¶ 3.)

//

Case 3:11-cv-00138-JLS-CAB Document 11 Filed 05/12/11 Page 1 of 3
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

- 2 - 11cv138

LEGAL STANDARD

In cases “brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original

jurisdiction,” a defendant may remove the case to federal district court. 28 U.S.C. §1441(a).

However, courts “strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction.” Gaus v. Miles,

Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). Therefore, “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be

rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Id. (citing Libhart v.

Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979)). The removing party bears the burden

of establishing that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists. Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d

1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988).

In order to establish removal jurisdiction over a diversity action, the removing defendants must

establish compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), which provides for diversity jurisdiction where (a) the

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, and (b) the suit is between citizens of different states. The

diversity requirement is satisfied if the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of

each defendant. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). Courts look to “the time of the

filing of a complaint” to determine whether complete diversity exists. In re Haw. Fed. Asbestos

Cases, 960 F.2d 806, 810 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Smith v. Sperling, 354 U.S. 91, 93 n.1 (1957)).

DISCUSSION

For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any

state by which it has been incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of business.”

28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (emphasis added). In Hertz Corp. v. Friend,— U.S. —, 130 S. Ct. 1181, 1186

(2010), the Supreme Court clarified that the term “principal place of business” means, for purposes

of federal jurisdiction, the locale where a corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and

coordinate the corporation’s activities,” often called the “nerve center.”

Plaintiff premises his motion to remand on the now-outmoded “total activities” test of a

corporation’s principal place of business. (See Doc. No. 5-1 (Mem. ISO Mot. to Remand), at 3 (listing

“facts [that] reveal Defendant’s prominent presence in California”); Hertz, 130 S. Ct. at 1191–92

(rejecting “total activities” test).) Under Hertz, however, Defendant’s principal place of business is

Tennessee, “where CCA’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate CCA’s nation-wide

Case 3:11-cv-00138-JLS-CAB Document 11 Filed 05/12/11 Page 2 of 3
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 1

 Because the Court finds that Defendant’s removal was proper, Plaintiff’s request for award

of costs and fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) is DENIED AS MOOT.

- 3 - 11cv138

activities, including the company’s core administrative and executive functions.” (Doc. No. 9, at Ex.

1 (Carter Aff. ISO Opp’n) ¶ 12.) Thus, Defendant is a citizen of Maryland, where it is incorporated

(see id. ¶ 9), and Tennessee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). 

Because Plaintiff is a citizen of California (Mem. ISO Mot. to Remand 3), the complete

diversity requirement is satisfied. Accordingly, the Court has removal jurisdiction over this diversity

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441(b).1

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court and for award of costs and

fees is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 12, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00138-JLS-CAB Document 11 Filed 05/12/11 Page 3 of 3