1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIGUEL ANGEL DURON, JR. an No. 2:22-cv-01195-JAM-KJN individual; and MIGGY’S 12 TRUCKING DELIVERY SERVICE LLC, a dissolved limited 13 liability company, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND 14 Plaintiffs, 15 v. 16 NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an active California 17 corporation, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 The matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to 21 remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Mot. to 22 Remand (“Mot.”), ECF No. 12. Defendant Nationwide Mutual 23 Insurance Company opposes the motion. See Opp’n, ECF No. 13. 24 Plaintiffs replied. See Reply, ECF No. 14. For the reasons set 25 forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to remand.1 26
27 1 This motion was deemed suitable for decision without oral argument under E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled 28 for June 27, 2023. 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiffs Miguel Angel Duron, Jr. (“Duron”) and Miggy’s 3 Trucking Service LLC (“Miggy’s”) sued Defendant Nationwide Mutual 4 Insurance Company (“Nationwide”) in San Joaquin County Superior 5 Court on April 1, 2022. See Notice of Removal (“Notice”), Exh. A 6 “Complaint,” ECF No. 1-1. On June 22, 2022, Plaintiffs served 7 Defendant an amended statement of damages, disclosing for the 8 first time that they sought more than $75,000 in damages. 9 Notice, Exh. B “Pls.’ Amended Statement of Damages,” ECF No. 1-2. 10 Defendant then timely removed this action to federal court on 11 June 8, 2022. Notice at 6. Plaintiffs now move to remand the 12 case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 13 14 II. OPINION 15 A. Legal Standard 16 A district court must remand a case if it appears before 17 judgment that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 18 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). A plaintiff may seek to have a case 19 remanded to the state court from which it was removed if the 20 district court lacks jurisdiction or if there is a defect in the 21 removal procedure. Id. Removal statutes are to be construed 22 narrowly to limit removal jurisdiction. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. 23 v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 (1941). 24 District courts have original jurisdiction over all civil 25 cases where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and is 26 between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The 27 burden of establishing federal jurisdiction for purposes of 28 removal is on the party seeking removal. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. 1 Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004). When a court doubts 2 the removability of a case, such doubts shall be resolved in 3 favor of remanding the case to state court. Mantheon v. 4 Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 5 2003). 6 B. Discussion 7 The parties do not dispute that the amount in controversy in 8 this case exceeds $75,000. Pls.’ Amended Statement of Damages 9 at 2 (claiming $1,000,000 in damages). The parties also do not 10 dispute diversity. According to Plaintiffs’ complaint, Duron is 11 a citizen and resident of California and Miggy’s is a dissolved 12 limited liability company whose principal place of business was 13 in California, giving it California citizenship. Compl. ¶¶ 1-2; 14 Jack v. Ring LLC, 553 F. Supp. 3d 711, 715 (N.D. Cal 2021) 15 (holding that the citizenship of a limited liability company “is 16 based on its principal place of business”). Plaintiffs also 17 admit that Defendant “NATIONWIDE is an Ohio corporation,” making 18 it diverse from both plaintiffs. Mot. at 8. Under these 19 undisputed facts, diversity jurisdiction appears satisfied. 20 Plaintiffs contend, however, that diversity is destroyed, 21 because Defendant Nationwide “has purposefully availed itself of 22 the privilege of conducting business in California and has 23 sufficient minimum contacts within the State of California such 24 that the superior court may exercise personal jurisdiction over 25 it.” Id. at 9-10. Plaintiffs’ argument conflates subject matter 26 jurisdiction with personal jurisdiction, an approach that is 27 neither novel nor persuasive. See Satmarean v. Philips Consumer 28 Luminaries, NA, No. 13-CV-02778-YGR, 2013 WL 5425339, at *1 (N.D. 1 Cal. Sept. 27, 2013)(declining “to expand the minimum contacts 2 doctrine into a means of disregarding [the] citizenship of 3 parties for the purposes of challenging diversity 4 jurisdiction.”); Zamarippa v. Am.’s Servicing Co., No. 5 CV1107129SJOJEMX, 2011 WL 13221033, at *2 n. 2 (C.D. Cal. 6 Sept. 27, 2011) (rejecting as “erroneous” an argument “that Wells 7 Fargo has sufficient minimum contacts in California as to be 8 subject to the Court’s jurisdiction” because plaintiff confused 9 “personal jurisdiction with a determination of citizenship for 10 the purpose of subject matter jurisdiction.”). 11 Plaintiffs’ argument fails because personal jurisdiction and 12 subject matter jurisdiction are fundamentally distinct concepts. 13 Personal jurisdiction recognizes and protects an individual 14 liberty interest under the Due Process Clause of the 15 Constitution. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 16 286, 291 (1980) (“The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 17 Amendment limits the power of a state court to render a valid 18 personal judgment against a nonresident defendant.”). Personal 19 jurisdiction therefore restricts judicial power from unjustified 20 encroachment on individual liberty, such that a person without 21 “minimum contacts” with a forum cannot be bound by that forum’s 22 courts. Id. This is why the test for personal jurisdiction 23 includes the requirement that “maintenance of the suit not offend 24 traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” 25 International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) 26 (internal citations omitted). 27 /// 28 /// 1 Subject matter jurisdiction, on the other hand, concerns not 2 the rights of individuals but the very power of federal courts to 3 hear a case. As the Supreme Court explains, subject matter 4 jurisdiction “is an Art. III as well as a statutory requirement; 5 it functions as a restriction on federal power and contributes to 6 the characterization of the federal sovereign. Certain legal 7 consequences directly follow from this.” Ins. Corp. of Ir. V. 8 Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982). The 9 most significant consequence for the Court’s analysis is that “no 10 action of the parties can confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon 11 a federal court.” Id. Parties cannot consent to subject matter 12 jurisdiction, and they cannot waive its requirement by failing to 13 challenge jurisdiction in an early proceeding. Id. 14 A party cannot destroy subject matter jurisdiction where it 15 exists by “avail[ing]” themselves of business opportunities 16 within the forum state as Plaintiffs suggest. Mot. at 9. 17 Personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction are 18 separate doctrines, and the Court declines today to upend long- 19 settled principles by collapsing the two together. Whether 20 Defendant Nationwide has maintained minimum contacts within the 21 State of California is therefore irrelevant to the Court’s 22 subject matter jurisdiction analysis.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIGUEL ANGEL DURON, JR. an No. 2:22-cv-01195-JAM-KJN individual; and MIGGY’S 12 TRUCKING DELIVERY SERVICE LLC, a dissolved limited 13 liability company, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND 14 Plaintiffs, 15 v. 16 NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an active California 17 corporation, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 The matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to 21 remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Mot. to 22 Remand (“Mot.”), ECF No. 12. Defendant Nationwide Mutual 23 Insurance Company opposes the motion. See Opp’n, ECF No. 13. 24 Plaintiffs replied. See Reply, ECF No. 14. For the reasons set 25 forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to remand.1 26
27 1 This motion was deemed suitable for decision without oral argument under E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled 28 for June 27, 2023. 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiffs Miguel Angel Duron, Jr. (“Duron”) and Miggy’s 3 Trucking Service LLC (“Miggy’s”) sued Defendant Nationwide Mutual 4 Insurance Company (“Nationwide”) in San Joaquin County Superior 5 Court on April 1, 2022. See Notice of Removal (“Notice”), Exh. A 6 “Complaint,” ECF No. 1-1. On June 22, 2022, Plaintiffs served 7 Defendant an amended statement of damages, disclosing for the 8 first time that they sought more than $75,000 in damages. 9 Notice, Exh. B “Pls.’ Amended Statement of Damages,” ECF No. 1-2. 10 Defendant then timely removed this action to federal court on 11 June 8, 2022. Notice at 6. Plaintiffs now move to remand the 12 case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 13 14 II. OPINION 15 A. Legal Standard 16 A district court must remand a case if it appears before 17 judgment that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 18 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). A plaintiff may seek to have a case 19 remanded to the state court from which it was removed if the 20 district court lacks jurisdiction or if there is a defect in the 21 removal procedure. Id. Removal statutes are to be construed 22 narrowly to limit removal jurisdiction. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. 23 v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 (1941). 24 District courts have original jurisdiction over all civil 25 cases where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and is 26 between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The 27 burden of establishing federal jurisdiction for purposes of 28 removal is on the party seeking removal. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. 1 Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004). When a court doubts 2 the removability of a case, such doubts shall be resolved in 3 favor of remanding the case to state court. Mantheon v. 4 Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 5 2003). 6 B. Discussion 7 The parties do not dispute that the amount in controversy in 8 this case exceeds $75,000. Pls.’ Amended Statement of Damages 9 at 2 (claiming $1,000,000 in damages). The parties also do not 10 dispute diversity. According to Plaintiffs’ complaint, Duron is 11 a citizen and resident of California and Miggy’s is a dissolved 12 limited liability company whose principal place of business was 13 in California, giving it California citizenship. Compl. ¶¶ 1-2; 14 Jack v. Ring LLC, 553 F. Supp. 3d 711, 715 (N.D. Cal 2021) 15 (holding that the citizenship of a limited liability company “is 16 based on its principal place of business”). Plaintiffs also 17 admit that Defendant “NATIONWIDE is an Ohio corporation,” making 18 it diverse from both plaintiffs. Mot. at 8. Under these 19 undisputed facts, diversity jurisdiction appears satisfied. 20 Plaintiffs contend, however, that diversity is destroyed, 21 because Defendant Nationwide “has purposefully availed itself of 22 the privilege of conducting business in California and has 23 sufficient minimum contacts within the State of California such 24 that the superior court may exercise personal jurisdiction over 25 it.” Id. at 9-10. Plaintiffs’ argument conflates subject matter 26 jurisdiction with personal jurisdiction, an approach that is 27 neither novel nor persuasive. See Satmarean v. Philips Consumer 28 Luminaries, NA, No. 13-CV-02778-YGR, 2013 WL 5425339, at *1 (N.D. 1 Cal. Sept. 27, 2013)(declining “to expand the minimum contacts 2 doctrine into a means of disregarding [the] citizenship of 3 parties for the purposes of challenging diversity 4 jurisdiction.”); Zamarippa v. Am.’s Servicing Co., No. 5 CV1107129SJOJEMX, 2011 WL 13221033, at *2 n. 2 (C.D. Cal. 6 Sept. 27, 2011) (rejecting as “erroneous” an argument “that Wells 7 Fargo has sufficient minimum contacts in California as to be 8 subject to the Court’s jurisdiction” because plaintiff confused 9 “personal jurisdiction with a determination of citizenship for 10 the purpose of subject matter jurisdiction.”). 11 Plaintiffs’ argument fails because personal jurisdiction and 12 subject matter jurisdiction are fundamentally distinct concepts. 13 Personal jurisdiction recognizes and protects an individual 14 liberty interest under the Due Process Clause of the 15 Constitution. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 16 286, 291 (1980) (“The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 17 Amendment limits the power of a state court to render a valid 18 personal judgment against a nonresident defendant.”). Personal 19 jurisdiction therefore restricts judicial power from unjustified 20 encroachment on individual liberty, such that a person without 21 “minimum contacts” with a forum cannot be bound by that forum’s 22 courts. Id. This is why the test for personal jurisdiction 23 includes the requirement that “maintenance of the suit not offend 24 traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” 25 International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) 26 (internal citations omitted). 27 /// 28 /// 1 Subject matter jurisdiction, on the other hand, concerns not 2 the rights of individuals but the very power of federal courts to 3 hear a case. As the Supreme Court explains, subject matter 4 jurisdiction “is an Art. III as well as a statutory requirement; 5 it functions as a restriction on federal power and contributes to 6 the characterization of the federal sovereign. Certain legal 7 consequences directly follow from this.” Ins. Corp. of Ir. V. 8 Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982). The 9 most significant consequence for the Court’s analysis is that “no 10 action of the parties can confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon 11 a federal court.” Id. Parties cannot consent to subject matter 12 jurisdiction, and they cannot waive its requirement by failing to 13 challenge jurisdiction in an early proceeding. Id. 14 A party cannot destroy subject matter jurisdiction where it 15 exists by “avail[ing]” themselves of business opportunities 16 within the forum state as Plaintiffs suggest. Mot. at 9. 17 Personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction are 18 separate doctrines, and the Court declines today to upend long- 19 settled principles by collapsing the two together. Whether 20 Defendant Nationwide has maintained minimum contacts within the 21 State of California is therefore irrelevant to the Court’s 22 subject matter jurisdiction analysis. 23 There being no relevant arguments, the Court returns to the 24 undisputed facts. Considering the diverse citizenship of parties 25 and the amount in controversy, which exceeds $75,000, the Court 26 finds that the requirements for diversity jurisdiction are 27 satisfied. There being subject matter jurisdiction in this case, 28 the Court declines to remand this action to state court. The eee ee mee EIDE II I IE OEE IESE IIE EEE
1 Court further denies Plaintiffs’ request for an award of 2 attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the removal, because such 3 an award is only available when removal is improper. 4 5 Til. ORDER 6 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES 7 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand and Request for Attorney’s Fees. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED 9 Dated: August 10, 2023 10 : APs JOHN A. MENDEZ 12 SENIOR UNITED*STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28