Sarah Giannella v. Bishoy Hanna ( 2024 )

1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SARAH GIANNELLA, Case No. 2:24-cv-01191-FLA 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF 13 v. SARAH GIANNELLA’S EX PARTE APPLICATION [DKT. 6] AND 14 REMANDING ACTION BISHOY HANNA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 RULING 20 On January 12, 2024, Defendant Bishoy Hanna (“Hanna”) filed a Notice of 21 Removal, arguing the court has jurisdiction over three separate actions, all of which 22 Hanna claimed to be related. Giannella v. Hanna, Case No. 2:24-cv-00304-FLA 23 (BFMx), Dkt. 1. Those actions were (1) Sarah Giannella v. Bishoy Hanna, Los 24 Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 23SMRO00410 (the “First Action”); (2) 25 Bishoy Hanna v. Josh Freeman Stinn, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court, 26 Case No. 24STCV00037 (the “Second Action”); and (3) Bishoy Hanna v. Sarah 27 Giannella, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 23STFL10014 (the “Third 28 Action”). Id. 1 On January 19, 2024, the court issued an Order remanding all three actions, 2 finding the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction (the “First Remand Order”). 3 Giannella, Case No. 2:24-cv-00304-FLA (BFMx), Dkt. 6 (“1/19/24 Order”). 4 On February 13, 2024, Hanna again filed a Notice of Removal to this court, 5 seeking the court’s jurisdiction as to the First Action, the Second Action, the Third 6 Action, and an additional action, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 7 23SMCV05683 (the “Fourth Action”). On February 15, 2024, Plaintiff Sarah 8 Giannella (“Giannella”) filed an Ex Parte Application to remand all actions to the Los 9 Angeles County Superior Court (the “EPA”). Dkt. 6. For the reasons set forth in the 10 court’s First Remand Order, the court hereby determines it lacks subject matter 11 jurisdiction over the First, Second, and Third Actions. See 1/19/24 Order. 12 With respect to the Fourth Action, Hanna has failed to demonstrate a basis for 13 federal jurisdiction. Federal courts have jurisdiction where an action arises under 14 federal law or where each plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s 15 citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and 16 costs. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a). Thus, a notice removing an action from state 17 court to federal court must include “a plausible allegation that the amount in 18 controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating 19 Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). The removing defendant bears the 20 burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 21 F.3d 676, 682 (9th Cir. 2006). Failure to do so requires the case be remanded, as 22 “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction may not be waived, and ... the district court must remand 23 if it lacks jurisdiction.” Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 24 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). 25 Here, Hanna provides no evidence or argument indicating that the court has 26 either diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction over the Fourth Action. 27 Hanna also appears to be the Plaintiff in the Fourth Action, which alone requires the 28 action be remanded. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (removal may be effectuated only by I | “the defendant or the defendants”). Accordingly, the court lacks jurisdiction over the 2 | Fourth Action. 3 For the reasons set forth above, the court determines it lacks subject matter 4 || jurisdiction as to the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Actions. As this was Hanna’s 5 || second attempt to remove these actions despite the court’s prior remand, the court 6 | ORDERS that further attempts to remove these actions shall be barred by the law of 7 || the case. Future attempts to remove these Actions shall not divest the Los Angeles 8 | Superior Court of jurisdiction. The court, therefore, GRANTS the EPA and 9 | REMANDS the First Action (Case No. 23SMRO00410), the Second Action (Case 10 | No. 24STCV00037), the Third Action (Case No. 23STFL10014), and the Fourth 11 | Action (Case No. 23SMCV05683), to the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The 12 | clerk of the court shall close the action administratively. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 | Dated: February 16, 2024 17 S is FERNANDO'L. AENLLE-ROCHA 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28