1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEDCOR CONSTRUCTION INC., Case No.: 19cv1055-JAH (MDD)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. REMAND (Doc. No. 5) 14 HERITAGE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 INTRODUCTION 19 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Ledcor Construction, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion 20 to Remand to State Court (“Motion”). See Doc. No. 5. Defendant Heritage Construction, 21 et al. (“Defendants”) have not filed a response in opposition. After careful consideration 22 of the pleadings, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion 23 (Doc. No. 5). 24 BACKGROUND 25 This case was removed from San Diego Superior Court on June 5, 2019. See Doc. 26 No. 1. On July 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Remand to State Court. See Doc. No. 27 5. Defendants had until August 12, 2019 to file a response in opposition. To date, no 28 response has been filed. 1 DISCUSSION 2 I. Legal Standard 3 The federal court is one of limited jurisdiction. Gould v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. 4 New York,

(9th Cir. 1986). As such, it cannot reach the merits of any 5 dispute until it confirms its own subject matter jurisdiction. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a 6 Better Environ.,

(1998). The removal statute,

allows 7 defendants to remove an action when a case originally filed in state court presents a federal 8 question, or is between citizens of different states and involves an amount in controversy 9 that exceeds $75,000. See

(a) and (b);

, 1332(a). 10 District courts must construe the removal statutes strictly against removal and resolve any 11 uncertainty as to removability in favor of remanding the case to state court. Boggs v. 12 Lewis,

(9th Cir. 1988). The ‘strong presumption’ against removal 13 jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is 14 proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). Specifically, the burden 15 is on the removing party to demonstrate federal subject matter jurisdiction over the case. 16 See Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co.,

(9th Cir. 1988). 17 II. Analysis 18 Plaintiff argues that there is no federal jurisdiction over this case. Doc. No. 5-1 at 19 pg. 2. The Court agrees. The burden is on the removing party to demonstrate federal 20 subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Emrich, 846 at pg. 1195. The Court finds that 21 Defendants have not met this burden. Plaintiff’s complaint centers on a breach of contract 22 cause of action and no federal question exists. In addition, there is no complete diversity 23 because Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California and one or more of defendants are 24 citizens of the State of California as well. Accordingly, the Court finds that remand is 25 proper. 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that □□□□□□□□□□□ 3 || Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 5) is GRANTED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 ||} DATED: August 27, 2019 lV 7 J JOHN A. HOUSTON g / United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28