Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00374/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00374-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIKE SEIFERT,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES KINDER, an individual; HOME

DEPOT, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:13-cv-0374-GPC-KSC

ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING

ACTION TO STATE COURT

On February 15, 2013, defendant Home Depot, Inc. filed a notice of removal, removing a civil

action from the San Diego Superior Court to this Court.1

A federal court is one of limited jurisdiction. See Gould v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. New York,

790 F.2d 769, 774 (9th Cir.1986). As such, it cannot reach the merits of any dispute until it confirms

its own subject matter jurisdiction. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environ., 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998). 

“Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to

the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.” Id. 

Removal jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441, et seq. District courts must construe

the removal statutes strictly against removal and resolve any uncertainty as to removability in favor

of remanding the case to state court. Lowdermilk v. United States Bank Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998 (9th

Cir.2007); Boggs v. Lewis, 863 F.2d 662, 663 (9th Cir.1988). There is a strong presumption against

 San Diego Superior Court case number 37-2012-00069612-CU-PO-EC. 1

3:13-cv-0374-GPC-KSC

Case 3:13-cv-00374-GPC-KSC Document 4 Filed 02/22/13 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

removal jurisdiction and federal 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) (per curiam )

(citing Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir.1979)). Moreover, “[i]f at

any time before final judgment it appears the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case

shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447. As such, sua sponte remand is appropriate where the Court

lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Maniar v. FDIC, 979 F.2d 782, 785 (9th Cir. 1992) (court

may sua sponte remand an action to state court for jurisdictional defects).

A state court action can only be removed if it could have originally been brought in federal

court. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). To establish diversity jurisdiction, the

defendant must show: (1) complete diversity among opposing parties and (2) an amount in controversy

exceeding $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The burden is on the party invoking the federal removal

statute to demonstrate federal subject matter jurisdiction exists. See Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co.,

846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir.1988). The defendant has the burden of establishing that removal is

proper and must support its jurisdictional allegations with competent proof. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76

F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir.1996); Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566; Nishimoto v. Federman–Bachrach & Assocs.,

903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir.1990).

Here, Home Depot asserts in its Notice of Removal that this Court has diversity jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Home Depot asserts it is a citizen of Delaware and Georgia and that

Plaintiff is a citizen of California. Home Depot fails, however, to provide the citizenship of its codefendant James Kinder. Plaintiff’s Complaint provides: “Plaintiff is informed and believes, and

thereon alleges, that defendant JAMES KINDER is, and at all times mentioned, herein, was, an

individual residing in the town of Julian, within the unincorporated eastern area of the County of SAN

DIEGO, State of California.” Accordingly, from the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint, it appears Kinder

is also a citizen of California. This defeats diversity jurisdiction given Plaintiff’s California

citizenship. This Court finds that Home Depot has thus failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that

this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447, this Court SUA 

/ / /

/ / /

2 3:13-cv-0374-GPC-KSC

Case 3:13-cv-00374-GPC-KSC Document 4 Filed 02/22/13 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

SPONTE REMANDS this action to the San Diego Superior Court.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 22, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

3 3:13-cv-0374-GPC-KSC

Case 3:13-cv-00374-GPC-KSC Document 4 Filed 02/22/13 Page 3 of 3