1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDRES MATZNER, Case No.: 23-CV-1015 TWR (KSC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING 13 v. ACTION TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY 14 CITIBANK, N.A., and DOES 1 to 10 OF SAN DIEGO, CENTRAL INCLUSIVE, 15 DIVISION Defendants. 16 (ECF No. 1) 17 18 On June 5, 2023, the Court ordered Defendant Citibank, N.A. (“Citibank”) to show 19 cause within fourteen days why this action should not be remanded to the Superior Court 20 of California, County of San Diego for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (See ECF No. 21 4, “OSC.”) Citibank timely responded on June 14, 2023. (See ECF No. 7, “Resp.”) After 22 carefully considering Citibank’s Response, Plaintiff Andres Matzner’s Complaint (ECF 23 No. 1 at 6–15, “Compl.”), and the relevant law, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this 24 action to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Central Division. 25 BACKGROUND 26 Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff initiated this action in the Central Division of the San 27 Diego County Superior Court on February 9, 2023. (See Compl. at 11.) The Complaint 28 alleges two common law causes of action for “general negligence” and “intentional tort.” 1 (See generally Compl.) Plaintiff served Citibank with the Complaint and Summons on 2 May 3, 2023. (ECF No. 1 at 1–3, “NOR” ¶ 3.) 3 On June 1, 2023, Citibank timely removed this action to the United States District 4 Court for the Southern District of California pursuant to

(b). (See 5 generally NOR.) In short, the Notice of Removal asserts that this Court has subject-matter 6 jurisdiction over the instant action pursuant to

because there is complete 7 diversity of citizenship between the Parties and the amount in controversy exceeds 8 $75,000. (See

¶¶ 4–6.) 9 In response to the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint and Defendant’s Notice of 10 Removal, on June 5, 2023, the Court ordered Citibank to show cause why this action should 11 not be remanded to the Superior Court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (See 12 generally OSC.) Specifically, the Court required Citibank to “establish[] by a 13 preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory 14 threshold of $75,000.” (See

.) Citibank filed a Response to the Order to Show 15 Cause on June 14, 2023. (See Resp.) 16 Meanwhile, on June 7, 2023, Citibank filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. (See 17 ECF No. 5.) The Court set the Motion for a hearing on August 17, 2023, and ordered 18 responsive briefing. (See ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff has not yet filed an opposition to the 19 Motion nor made an appearance before this Court. (See generally Docket.) 20 LEGAL STANDARD 21 As explained in the Court’s Order to Show Cause, a suit filed in state court may only 22 be removed to federal court if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over 23 the action. See

(a). This is because “[f]ederal courts are courts of limited 24 jurisdiction.” Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2017) 25 (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

(1994)). Typically, 26 federal courts only have subject-matter jurisdiction if a case presents a federal question, 27 see

, or if there is complete diversity of citizenship among the parties and 28 the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, see

(a). 1 Because there is a “strong presumption” against removal to federal court, “the 2 defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, 3 Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992) (first citing Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & 4 Assocs.,

, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990); and then citing Emrich v. Touche Ross & 5 Co.,

(9th Cir. 1988)). If a defendant removes an action based on 6 diversity jurisdiction and the amount in controversy is unclear from the complaint, “the 7 court may demand that the party alleging jurisdiction justify his allegations by a 8 preponderance of evidence.” McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind.,

178, 199 (1936); see also Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens,

81, 88 (2014) (“‘[R]emoval . . . is proper on the basis of an amount in controversy asserted’ 11 by the defendant ‘if the district court finds, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the 12 amount in controversy exceeds’ the jurisdictional threshold.” (quoting 28 U.S.C. 13 § 1446(c)(2)(B))); Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins., Co.,

(9th 14 Cir. 2003). 15 Federal courts have “an independent obligation to address sua sponte whether [they] 16 have subject matter jurisdiction.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes,

(9th 17 Cir. 2004) (citing Dittman v. California,

(9th Cir. 1999)). “If the 18 court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss 19 the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see also

(c). Moreover, “[f]ederal 20 jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal.” See Gaus, 21

(citing Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co.,

(9th Cir. 22 1979)). 23 ANALYSIS 24 Citibank maintains that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over the instant action 25 because “complete diversity of citizenship exists,” (see NOR ¶ 5), and “Plaintiff seeks 26 damages in excess of $150,000.00,” (see id. ¶ 6; see also Resp. at 3). Although the 27 complete diversity of the Parties is not in dispute, the Complaint is not clear as to the 28 amount in controversy. Plaintiff brought this action in state court as “an unlimited civil 1 case,” meaning he believes the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000, (see Compl. at 6), 2 but the Complaint’s prayer for relief does not seek a specific amount of damages, (see id. 3 at 8). Instead, it seeks an unspecified amount “according to proof.” (See id.) 4 Nonetheless, Citibank asserts it “had a reasonable belief that Plaintiff’s request for 5 damages met the $75,000 diversity threshold,” (see Resp. at 3), because Plaintiff’s 6 Complaint alleges, amongst other things, that “approximately $150,000 was withdrawn 7 from [Plaintiff’s] account without his knowledge or authorization [and] transferred to 8 Robinhood Financial LLC,” (see Compl. at 9). Nowhere in the Complaint, however, does 9 Plaintiff seek $150,000 from Citibank. In the “descriptions of reasons for liability” on the 10 negligence claim, Plaintiff explains that he opened an account at Defendant’s bank and 11 deposited $490,000 in June 2022. (See id.) One to two months later, $150,000 was 12 automatically withdrawn by Robinhood Financial LLC. (See id.) Plaintiff disputed this 13 transaction with Citibank, which allegedly “promised to return the unauthorized amount.” 14 (See id.) 15 Shortly thereafter, Citibank closed Plaintiff’s account for undisclosed reasons and 16 stated that its decision would either be finalized or reversed in three months. (See id.) At 17 that same time, Citibank “withdrew the remaining balance on both of Mr. Matzner’s 18 accounts”—totaling approximately $37,000—which Citibank allegedly promised to return 19 to Plaintiff after reaching a final decision on the account closure. (See id.) Ultimately, in 20 December 2022, Citibank closed Plaintiff’s account, but it failed to return his remaining 21 balance or provide an explanation for the closure. (See id.) As a result, “Mr. Matzner thus 22 alleges gross negligence in the mismanagement and proper return of his funds taken by 23 [C]itibank N.A. which has resulted in a monetary loss of roughly $37,000 but for which 24 Mr. Matzner is currently unaware of the exact amount as he is logged out of his online 25 banking account.” (See id.) Plaintiff also alleges that Citibank “failed to protect his 26 account from unauthorized withdrawals” and failed to ensure that he “understood critical 27 account terms and conditions.” (See id.) Still, Plaintiff does not allege that these failures 28 caused further monetary loss beyond the aforementioned $37,000. 1 Moreover, in the “descriptions of reasons for liability” on the intentional tort claim, 2 Plaintiff does not make any mention of the $150,000 withdrawal. (See id. at 10.) Plaintiff 3 discusses only Defendant’s closure of his accounts and its withdrawal of “the remaining 4 balance on both of Mr. Matzner’s accounts[,] one account for roughly $35,000.00 and the 5 other account for roughly $2,000.00, which was said to be returned to Mr. Matzner upon 6 their final decision to close or not close Mr. Matzner’s account.” (See id.) 7 It is well established that “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt 8 as to the right of removal in the first instance.” See, e.g., Gaus,

(citing 9 Libhart,

). Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s “gross negligence . . . 10 resulted in a monetary loss of roughly $37,000,” (Compl. at 9), and the intentional tort 11 claim alleges the same, (see id. at 10). While the Complaint makes mention of an improper 12 withdrawal of $150,000 by Robinhood Financial LLC, Robinhood is not a Party to this 13 action. Moreover, the Complaint never alleges that Citibank now owes Plaintiff those 14 funds. 15 Therefore, the Court concludes that the allegations in the Complaint do not 16 adequately establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Further, Citibank’s 17 Response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause does not “prove, by a preponderance of the 18 evidence, that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold.” Matheson v. 19 Progressive Specialty Ins., Co.,

(9th Cir. 2003). Rather, Citibank’s 20 Response merely alleges that it had a “good faith belief” that removal was proper. (See 21 Resp. at 3.) Citibank does not, however, provide any new evidence to “prove” that the 22 amount in controversy in fact exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Accordingly, Citibank 23 has failed to meet its burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction under

1332(a). 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / I CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to the 3 ||Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Central Division, for lack of 4 subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) and 28 5 U.S.C. 1447(c). 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ||Dated: July 7, 2023 8 “Ten (2 D (oe 9 Honorable Todd W. Robinson 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28