1 2 J S-6 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SOUTHERN DIVISION 11 ) 12 ) Case No.: SACV 21-01021-CJC(JDEx) ) 13 TINA MARIE SILVA, ) ) 14 ) ) Plaintiff, 15 ) ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING ) CASE TO ORANGE COUNTY v. 16 ) SUPERIOR COURT ) 17 SUNFLOWER FARMERS MARKETS, ) ) 18 LLC, SPROUTS FARMERS ) MARKETS HOLDINGS, LLC, ) 19 SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET, and ) ) 20 DOES 1 through 20, ) ) 21 ) Defendants. ) 22 ) ) 23

24 Plaintiff Tina Marie Silva asserts a claim for negligence after a 2018 slip-and-fall 25 incident in one of Defendant SF Markets, LLC’s stores.1 (Dkt. 1-1 [Complaint].) On 26 27 1 Plaintiff’s Complaint erroneously names and Plaintiff erroneously served Sunflower Farmers Markets, 1 June 10, 2021, Defendant removed this action from Orange County Superior Court on the 2 basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Dkt. 1 [Notice of Removal].) 3 4 On July 2, 2021, the parties stipulated “[t]hat the amount in controversy to be 5 recovered by Plaintiff in this case, including all special damages and general damages, 6 shall not exceed $75,000.00” and “that the interests of justice are best served by having 7 this case heard and adjudicated in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange.” 8 (Dkt. 10 [Stipulation].) 9 10 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power 11 authorized by Constitution and statute.” Gunn v. Minton,

(2013) 12 (internal quotations omitted). A civil action filed in state court may be removed to a 13 federal district court when that federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the 14 action.

. Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over cases where the 15 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the citizenship of each plaintiff is different 16 from that of each defendant.

. The burden of establishing subject 17 matter jurisdiction in a removed case falls on the defendant, and the removal statute is 18 strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

, 566 19 (9th Cir. 1992). If at any time before final judgment, the court determines that it lacks 20 subject matter jurisdiction, the action shall be remanded to state court. 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1447(c). 22 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 Because the parties now stipulate that the amount in controversy will not exceed 2 $75,000, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case and remand is proper. 3 See

, 1447(c). Indeed, the parties agree that the interests of justice are 4 best served by having this case heard in California state court. Accordingly, the Court 5 sua sponte REMANDS the case to Orange County Superior Court. 6 7 8 DATED: July 7, 2021 9 __________________________________ 10 HON. CORMAC J. CARNEY 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27