Ali v. Tata Consultancy

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: August 26, 2022
• Docket: 5:22-cv-02371
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 SYED NAZIM ALI, Case No. 22-cv-02371-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. MOTION TO REMAND CASE TO STATE COURT 10 TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED, [Re: ECF 10] 11 Defendant. 12 13 Plaintiff Syed Nazim Ali (“Ali”), who is proceeding pro se, filed this suit in the Santa 14 Clara County Superior Court, asserting employment discrimination, fraud, and related claims 15 against Defendant Tata Consultancy Services Limited (“TCS”). See Compl., ECF 1-2. TCS 16 removed the suit to federal district court on the basis of diversity of citizenship. See Not. of 17 Removal, ECF 1. Ali moves to remand the case to the Santa Clara County Superior Court. See 18 Pl.’s Objections to Removal, ECF 10. The Court previously vacated the hearing scheduled for 19 August 25, 2022. See Order Vacating Hearing, ECF 24. 20 The motion to remand is DENIED for the reasons discussed below. 21 I. LEGAL STANDARD 22 “A defendant may remove an action to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction 23 or diversity jurisdiction.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) 24 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441). “The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means that the 25 defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper, and that the court resolves 26 all ambiguity in favor of remand to state court.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation 27 omitted). “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 Although Ali filed the motion to remand, TCS bears the burden of establishing subject 3 matter jurisdiction under the standard set forth above. To establish the existence of diversity 4 jurisdiction, TCS must show that its citizenship is different from that of Ali, and that the amount in 5 controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1043. 6 Before addressing these requirements, the Court takes up TCS’s objection to new evidence 7 submitted by Ali with his reply. Ali submits five new exhibits, including an order issued in 8 another case filed by Ali, emails, Ali’s resume, and Ali’s service agreement with the Federal Pro 9 Se Program. The Court declines to consider these exhibits on the ground that TCS did not have an 10 opportunity to address them. See Dutta v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 895 F.3d 1166, 1171-72 11 (9th Cir. 2018). Moreover, the exhibits shed no light on the relevant issues of diversity of 12 citizenship and amount in controversy. TCS’s objection to Ali’s reply evidence is SUSTAINED. 13 Turning back to the requirements for diversity jurisdiction, the Court first considers the 14 citizenship of the parties. There is no dispute that Ali is a California citizen. TCS is incorporated 15 under the laws of the state of Maharashtra in India and maintains its corporate headquarters there. 16 See Seetharaman Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 1-1. TCS’s headquarters in the United States is located in 17 Edison, New Jersey. See id. TCS therefore is a citizen of India and possibly of New Jersey, but 18 not of California. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80-81 (2010) (a corporation is a citizen 19 of the state of incorporation and the state where it had its principal place of business). The 20 requirement of diversity of citizenship is satisfied. 21 The Court next considers the amount in controversy. “[W]hen a complaint filed in state 22 court alleges on its face an amount in controversy sufficient to meet the federal jurisdictional 23 threshold, such requirement is presumptively satisfied unless it appears to a ‘legal certainty’ that 24 the plaintiff cannot actually recover that amount.” Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 25 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007). Ali’s complaint alleges that “Plaintiff incurred severe economic 26 damages over $200K annually due to Defendant and Sursh Ganta[.]” Compl. ¶ 99. Ali filed suit 27 in March 2022, almost two years after his alleged termination in May 2020. See Compl. ¶¶ 19-20. 1 Nothing in the current record shows to a legal certainty that Ali cannot recover his alleged 2 || damages in excess of $200,000. Accordingly, the amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied. 3 Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that TCS has established the existence of 4 || diversity jurisdiction. Ali’s arguments to the contrary are without merit. Ali argues that there is 5 no diversity of citizenship because TCS maintains business operations in California and a TCS 6 |} manager named Suresh Ganta works in California. Those facts are irrelevant to the determination 7 of TCS’s citizenship under the relevant legal standard. Ali also argues that removal was improper 8 || because he asserts only state law claims. The nature of the claims asserted — federal claims versus 9 state claims — is irrelevant when jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship. 10 Il. ORDER ll (1) Ali’s motion to remand is DENIED; and 12 (2) This order terminates ECF 10.

|| Dated: August 26, 2022 15 keom Lohr hammer) 2 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 16 United States District Judge

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28