1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ) 11 ) Case No.: CV 19-02201-CJC(SKx) JOANNE GILLIAS, ) 12 ) ) 13 ) Plaintiff, ) 14 ) v. ) 15 ) ORDER REMANDING CASE TO ANTHONY KANDARE, ) RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERIOR 16 ) COURT ) 17 ) Defendants. ) 18 ) ) 19 ) ) 20 ) 21 22 I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND 23 24 On September 17, 2019, Plaintiff Joanne Gillias filed a “Request for Elder or 25 Dependant Adult Abuse Restraining Order” against her brother, Defendant Anthony 26 Kandare, in Riverside County Superior Court. (Dkt. 1. [Notice of Removal, hereinafter 27 “NOR”] at Appendix C.) The request alleges that Defendant has been financially taking 1 have the capacity to make financial decisions. (Id.) According to the request, over the 2 last several months, Defendant has successfully borrowed funds from Ms. Kandare on 3 several occasions and continues to bombard her with requests for money. (Id.) The 4 Superior Court has since issued a temporary restraining order against Defendant, barring 5 him from engaging in further acts of financial abuse. (Id.) On November 15, 2019, 6 Defendant, appearing pro se, removed the case to this Court, invoking diversity 7 jurisdiction. (Dkt. 1. [Notice of Removal].) For the following reasons, the case is 8 DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 9 10 II. DISCUSSION 11 12 A civil action brought in state court may be removed by the defendant to a federal 13 district court if the action could have been brought there originally. See 28 U.S.C. 14 § 1441(a). The burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction falls on the defendant, 15 and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. See Gaus v. 16 Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992) (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if 17 there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”). If at any time before 18 final judgment, the court determines that it is without subject matter jurisdiction, the 19 action must be remanded to state court.

(c). Federal district courts have 20 diversity jurisdiction over suits for more than $75,000 where the citizenship of each 21 plaintiff is different from that of each defendant.

(a). 22 23 When, as here, a defendant invokes diversity jurisdiction and “the complaint does 24 not contain any specific amount of damages sought, the [defendant] bears the burden of 25 showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds the 26 statutory amount.” Lewis v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2010). 27 The defendant must make this showing with “summary-judgment-type evidence.” 1 like this one seeking only declaratory or injunctive relief, “the test for determining the 2 amount in controversy is the pecuniary result to either party which the judgment would 3 directly produce.” In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (S. Dakota), N.A.,

, 958 4 (9th Cir. 2001). 5 6 Defendant has not met his burden in establishing that the injunctive relief sought 7 here—a restraining order barring him from financially abusing his mother—would 8 directly produce a pecuniary result of over $75,000. Defendant’s primary contention for 9 why this action clears the amount in controversy threshold is that the issuance of a 10 restraining order could potentially preclude him from obtaining employment at various 11 places in the legal industry. (See NOR at 4–5.) But the issuance of the restraining order 12 would not “directly produce” any of these adverse employment consequences. See In re 13 Ford,

. The injunctive relief Plaintiff seeks would not directly bar 14 Defendant from applying to any jobs, it would only bar from continuing to financially 15 abuse his mother. Thus, any potential harm to Defendant’s job prospects would be 16 incidental to the issuance of the injunction, rather than a direct product of it. See Parham 17 v. McDonald's Corp.,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2011) (granting 18 motion to remand when costs alleged by defendant were incidental to, as opposed to a 19 direct product of, the proposed injunction). Such collateral costs cannot be considered 20 when determining amount in controversy. See Tompkins v. Basic Research LLC, 2008

, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2008). Defendant has not met his burden in 22 establishing this Court’s jurisdiction over the action. 23 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 || CONCLUSION 2 3 For the foregoing reasons, this case is REMANDED Riverside County Superior 4 || Court. 5 6 DATED: December 10, 2019 ep ge {FZ 8 CORMAC J. CARNEY 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28