Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180221_0001233.CCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 20:48:47+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Evangelista v. Just Energy Marketing Corp.
Evangelista v. Just Energy Marketing Corp.
JUST ENERGY MARKETING CORP., ET AL., Defendants.
Plaintiff Daniel Evangelista filed this action on November 21, 2017, in Orange County Superior Court alleging various violations of the California labor law and asserting seven claims on behalf of a putative class against Just Energy Marketing Corp. (“JEMC”), Just Energy Solutions Inc. (“JES”), Just Energy Limited (“JEL”), Just Energy Group Inc. (“JEG”), and various Doe defendants. (Dkt. 1-2 [Complaint, hereinafter “Compl.”].) Defendants removed the action to this Court on December 29, 2017. (Dkt. 1.) Before the Court is Plaintiffs motion to remand this action to Orange County Superior Court. (Dkt. 14 [hereinafter “Mot”].) For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
A civil action brought in a state court, but over which a federal court may exercise original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant to a federal district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “A suit may be removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) only if it could have been brought there originally.” Sullivan v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 813 F.2d 1368, 1371 (9th Cir. 1987); Infuturia Global Ltd. v. Sequus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 631 F.3d 1133, 1135 n.1 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A] federal court must have both removal and subject matter jurisdiction to hear a case removed from state court.”). The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir. 2006).

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 1441
 § 1441
 v. 
 v. 
 v.