UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JS-6 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL Case No. CV 19-10595-JFW(RAOx) Date: January 13, 2020 Title: Salome Flores -v- Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al.

PRESENT: HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Shannon Reilly None Present Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: None None PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION On November 13, 2019, Plaintiff Salome Flores (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Defendant”) in Los Angeles Superior Court. On December 16, 2019, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal, alleging that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to

(a). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See Bender v. Williamsport Area School District,

(1986). “Because of the Congressional purpose to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts on removal, the statute is strictly construed, and federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Duncan v. Stuetzle,

(9th Cir. 1996) (citations and quotations omitted). There is a strong presumption that the Court is without jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears. See Fifty Associates v. Prudential Insurance Company of America,

(9th Cir. 1990). As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, Defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that removal is proper. See, e.g., Gaus v. Miles,

(9th Cir. 1992); Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co.,

(9th Cir. 1988). Diversity jurisdiction founded under

(a) requires that (1) all plaintiffs be of different citizenship than all defendants, and (2) the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. See

(a). In this case, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is a “California resident.” Notice of Removal, ¶¶ 6 and 11. However, "the diversity jurisdiction statute,

, speaks of citizenship, not of residency." Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co.,

(9th Cir. 2001). Therefore, Defendant has failed to satisfy the burden of establishing that jurisdiction pursuant to

(a) exists. Accordingly, this action is REMANDED to Los Angeles Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See

(c). IT IS SO ORDERED.