Bahraini v. Jin Chen ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MONA BAHRAINI, No. 2:18-cv-03261-TLN-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JIN CHEN and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 This matter is before the Court on Defendant Jin Chen’s (“Chen”) Motion to Remand.1 19 (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff Mona Bahraini (“Plaintiff”) filed a Statement of Non-Opposition to 20 Defendant’s motion. (ECF No. 17.) Having carefully considered the briefing filed by both 21 parties, the Court hereby GRANTS Chen’s Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 15.) 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 1 Only Chen is a party to this motion. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Costco Wholesale 28 Corporation (“Costco”) was settled and dismissed. (See ECF Nos. 11, 12.) 1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff alleges that on June 27, 2017, Chen’s minor child ran into her while operating a 3 motorized cart on the premises of the Costco store located in Elk Grove, California. (ECF No. 1 4 at 23.) Plaintiff was injured as a result of the incident. (Id.) Plaintiff brought a negligence claim 5 against Costco, claiming Costco was negligent in maintaining its premises. (Id.) Plaintiff also 6 brought a negligence claim against Chen and Does 1 through 20 (collectively “Defendants”), 7 claiming they were negligent in the supervision of Chen’s minor child. (Id.) Plaintiff argues 8 Defendants “owed a heightened duty of care to take all reasonable measures to carry out their 9 mandatory and statutory duties to protect and supervise [Chen’s] child, to prevent foreseeable 10 harm.” (Id.) 11 On August 15, 2018, Plaintiff brought suit against Defendants in Sacramento County 12 Superior Court, alleging a single cause of action for negligence. (Id. at 22–25.) On December 13 26, 2018, Costco removed this action to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (diversity 14 jurisdiction), asserting Plaintiff is a citizen of California, Costco is a citizen of Washington, and 15 the value of Plaintiff’s damages amounted to $10,036,924.50.2 (Id. at 2, 4.) 16 On February 12, 2020, Costco filed a Joint Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with 17 Prejudice as to Costco after a settlement was reached between Plaintiff and Costco. (ECF No. 18 11.) Thereafter, Costco was dismissed from the current action and Chen remained the sole 19 defendant. (ECF No. 12.) On August 24, 2020, Chen filed a Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 15.) 20 On August 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Statement of Non-Opposition to Chen’s motion. (ECF No. 21 17.) 22 II. STANDARD OF LAW 23 A civil action brought in state court, over which the district court has original jurisdiction, 24 may be removed by the defendant to federal court in the judicial district and division in which the 25 state court action is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The district court has original jurisdiction 26 2 The Court notes that Costco’s Notice of Removal does not include Chen’s citizenship. 27 (See ECF No. 1.) Chen subsequently states in his Motion to Remand that both he and Plaintiff are California residents (ECF No. 15-1 at 2), suggesting that at even the time of Costco’s removal 28 of this action to this Court, subject matter jurisdiction did not exist. 1 over civil actions between citizens of different states in which the alleged damages exceed 2 $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of 3 proving diversity. Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Resnik v. La Paz Guest 4 Ranch, 289 F.2d 814, 819 (9th Cir. 1961)). Diversity is determined as of the time the complaint 5 is filed and removal effected. Strotek Corp. v. Air Transp. Ass’n of Am., 300 F.3d 1129, 1131 6 (9th Cir. 2002). Removal based on diversity requires that the citizenship of each plaintiff be 7 diverse from the citizenship of each defendant (i.e., complete diversity). Caterpillar Inc. v. 8 Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996), superseded by statute on other grounds, Class Action Fairness Act 9 of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005), as recognized in Vodicka v. Southern Methodist 10 Univ., No. 3:06-cv-2014-P, 2008 WL 11424122, at * (N.D. Tex. Dec. 31, 2008). An individual 11 defendant’s citizenship is determined by the state in which he or she is domiciled. Weight v. 12 Active Network, Inc., 29 F. Supp. 3d 1289, 1292 (S.D. Cal. 2014). Removal statutes are to be 13 strictly construed against removal. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 14 The amount in controversy is determined by reference to the complaint itself and includes 15 the amount of damages in dispute, as well as attorney’s fees, if authorized by statute or contract. 16 Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2005). Where the complaint does not 17 pray for damages in a specific amount, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the 18 evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. 19 Co., 116 F.3d 373, 376 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 20 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996)). If the amount is not facially apparent from the complaint, the Court 21 may “require parties to submit summary-judgment-type evidence relevant to the amount in 22 controversy at the time of removal.” Id. at 377 (citing Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 23 1326, 1335–36 (5th Cir. 1995)). 24 “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 25 jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded” to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 II. ANALYSIS 2 Chen moves to remand this action to Sacramento County Superior Court, arguing this 3 | Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 15 at 1.) Chen contends the “complaint does 4 | not raise a substantial federal question[] that is necessary to resolution of any of Plaintiff's claims, 5 | and with the dismissal of [Costco], a Washington State corporation, there is no diversity 6 | jurisdiction.” (d.) Plaintiff does not oppose Chen’s motion. (ECF No. 17.) 7 As Chen is the sole remaining defendant, and both Chen and Plaintiff are citizens of 8 | California, there is no diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Additionally, □□□□□□□□□□□ 9 | state law negligence claim does not establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 10 | 1331. (ECF No. 15 at 12.) Without diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction, this 11 | Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Thus, this action must be 12 | remanded to the Sacramento County Superior Court. 13 IV. CONCLUSION 14 For the foregoing reasons, Chen’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED. (ECF No. 15.) 15 | This action is hereby remanded to the Sacramento County Superior Court and the Clerk of the 16 || Court is directed to close this case. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 | Dated: February 9, 2021 19 /) 20 “ \/ Lu 21 2 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28