UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JS-6 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL Case No. CV 20-7249-JFW(PDx) Date: August 25, 2020 Title: Maria Evans -v- Costco Wholesale Corporation

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 On March 11, 2020, Plaintiff Maria Evans (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Defendant”) in Los Angeles Superior Court. On August 12, 2020, 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

. In this case, Defendant alleges the citizenship of Plaintiff based upon information and belief. Notice of Removal, ¶ 3. However, jurisdictional allegations based on information and belief are insufficient to confer jurisdiction. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co.,

(9th Cir. 2001) (“Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.”); America’s Best Inns, Inc.,

(holding that allegations based on “to the best of my knowledge and belief” are insufficient); see, also, Bradford v. Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines,

(N.D. Cal. 1963). Therefore, Defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing that diversity jurisdiction exists. See Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, this action is REMANDED to Los Angeles Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See

(c). IT IS SO ORDERED.