1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California 10 Western Division 11 12 JERAMIE ABBOTT, CV 19-01941 TJH (KKx)

13 Plaintiff, 14 v. Order 15 INTERNATIONAL VITAMIN CORPORATION, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 20 21 The Court has considered Plaintiff Jeramie Abbott’s motion to remand, together 22 with the moving and opposing papers. 23 Defendant International Vitamin Corporation [“IVC”] , as the party invoking the 24 Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, has the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a 25 preponderance of the evidence. Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC,

975, 981 (9th Cir. 2013). Initially, a defendant may rely on the allegations in its notice 27 of removal to satisfy the jurisdictional burden. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., 28 LLC v. Owens,

, 88 (2014). However, because Abbott has challenged the 1 || allegations in IVC’s notice of removal by filing his motion to remand, IVC must submit 2 || evidence to support its alleged basis for jurisdiction. See Dart Cherokee,

3 || at 88. The evidence in support of jurisdiction must be of “summary-judgement type,” 4 || such as declarations, and cannot be based on “mere speculation and conjecture.” See 5 || Ibarra v. Manheim Investments, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2015). 6 Here, to establish that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class 7 || Action Fairness Act [“CAFA”], IVC must submit evidence showing that, inter alia, 8 || the parties are minimally diverse, that is, at least one plaintiff is a citizen of a different 9 || state than at least one defendant on the date of removal.

(d)(2). A 10 || person’s citizenship is where she is domiciled, that is, where she resides with the 11 || intension to remain and return. Kanter,

. Residence, alone, is 12 || insufficient to establish domicile. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co.,

, 13 | 857 (9th Cir. 2001). IVC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business 14 | in Riverside, California. Accordingly, for there to be minimal diversity, at least one 15 || putative class member must be a citizen of a state other than Delaware or California. 16 IVC submitted a declaration from its Senior Manager of Benefits, Rolando 17 || Montano, dated November 18, 2019. Montano declared that in June, 2018 - more than 18 | a year before this case was removed in October, 2019 - an unnamed putative class 19 | member informed IVC that he was quitting and moving to Missouri. Montano, also, 20 |j declared that IVC “recently confirmed through [the putative class member’s] spouse 21 || that [he] continues to live in Missouri]” and that “IVC understands [that the putative 22 || class member] intends to continue to reside” in Missouri. 23 Montano’s declaration contains multiple levels of hearsay and lacks a factual 24 || basis to support its conclusory statements. Without a sufficient factual basis, the 25 || declaration is the sort of “mere speculation and conjecture” barred by Jbarra,

|| 1193 at 1197. Finally, IVC did not seek leave to conduct early jurisdictional discovery. 27 || See Dart Cherokee,

at 89. 28 Thus, IVC failed to meet its burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction by

Order — Page 2 of 3

1 || a preponderance of the evidence. See Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility, 728 F.3d at 981. 2 3 Accordingly, 4 5 It is Ordered that the motion to remand be, and hereby is, 6rantey., 6 7 8 || Date: March 2, 2020 le 9 (uae CZ. Vel tew, fon 10 Cetrp J. HatterAr. Senior United States District Jusge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Order — Page 3 of 3