CUENNTITREADL S DTIASTTERSIC DTI SOTFR CICATL ICFOOURRNTIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 21-00471 PA (SHKx) Date March 19, 2021 Title Gabriela Royo v. Berry Global, Inc. et al.

Present: The Honorable PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Kamilla Sali-Suleyman Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: None None Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER The Court is in receipt of a Notice of Removal filed by defendants Berry Global, Inc., Berry Global Films, LLC, and Berry Plastics Technical Services, Inc. (“Defendants”). (Dkt. 1 (“Removal”).) The Notice of Removal alleges the Court possesses diversity jurisdiction over this action pursuant to

. (Id. at ¶1.) Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,

(1994). A suit filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the suit.

(a). “The removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls to the party invoking the statute.” California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2004) (citing Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest.,

, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988)). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). Jurisdiction may be based on complete diversity of citizenship, requiring all plaintiffs to have a different citizenship from all defendants and for the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000.00. See

. To establish citizenship for diversity purposes, a natural person must be a citizen of the United States and be domiciled in a particular state. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd.,

(9th Cir. 1983). Persons are domiciled in the places they reside with the intent to remain or to which they intend to return. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co.,

(9th Cir. 2001). Here, the Notice of Removal states, “[a]t the time Plaintiff commenced this action and at the time of removal, Plaintiff was a citizen of the State of California as Plaintiff herself alleges that she was a resident of the County of Riverside in the State of California. Compl., ¶ 2.” (Removal ¶17.) Paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s Complaint only states, “Plaintiff at the time of the filing of this complaint, is a resident of the County of Riverside, State of California.” (Removal, Ex. A (“Compl.”) ¶2.) However, Residence is not necessarily the same as domicile. Kanter,

(“A person residing in a CUENNTITREADL S DTIASTTERSIC DTI SOTFR CICATL ICFOOURRNTIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 21-00471 PA (SHKx) Date March 19, 2021 Title Gabriela Royo v. Berry Global, Inc. et al. “Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.”

Without more, Defendants have not adequately alleged Plaintiff’s citizenship. For these reasons, the Court concludes that Defendants have not met the burden of showing this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. This action is therefore remanded to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Bernardino, Case No. CIVSB2028110, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See

(c). IT IS SO ORDERED.