Natalie Lambert v. Uniregistry, Inc.

United States District Court for the Central District of California

Natalie Lambert v. Uniregistry, Inc.

Trial Court Opinion

____________________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case Nos. 8:18-cv-01566-JLS-JDE Date: November 18, 2019 Titles: Natalie Lambert v. Uniregistry, Inc. et al

Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Terry Guerrero N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Plaintiff Natalie Lambert filed this action in Orange County Superior Court on July 24, 2018, alleging only California state-law claims. (Compl. Doc. 1-2.) Defendants removed the matter to this Court on August 31, 2019. (Notice of Removal, Doc. 1.) At time of filing in Orange County Superior Court, Lambert was a Florida resident. (Compl. ¶ 2.) In the Notice of Removal, Defendants state that at time of filing Derderian was, and still is, a California resident and that Uniregistry was, and still is, a corporation with its principal place of business in California. (Notice of Removal ¶¶ 1-4.) As the party invoking the removal jurisdiction of this Court, Defendants bear “the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.” California ex. Rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc.,

375 F.3d 831, 838

. Pursuant to

28 U.S.C. section 1441

(b)(2), a “civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of [diversity jurisdiction] may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” In the Ninth Circuit, the removal statute is “strictly construed . . . against removal jurisdiction.” Gaus v. Miles,

980 F.2d 564

(9th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, Defendants are ORDERED to show cause, in writing, no later than five (5) days from the date of the Order, why the Court should not remand this action to Orange County Superior Court. Failure to timely or adequately respond will result in immediate remand of this action. Initials of Preparer: tg

Reference

Status
Unknown