Summary
The United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered the parties to show cause why the action should not be remanded for failure to timely remove it under 28 U.S.C. § 1446. The court directed defendants to respond within fourteen days and explain the facial and factual sufficiency of federal subject matter jurisdiction.
Holdings
- The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction, and a removing defendant must demonstrate that the notice of removal was filed within thirty days after receipt of the initial pleading or summons. Because the record did not presently establish timely removal, the court ordered defendants to show cause why the action should not be remanded.
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendants had established that removal was timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).
- Whether the record sufficiently demonstrated federal subject matter jurisdiction to avoid remand.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (4)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n. 3 (2006)(followed)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
- Babasa v. LensCrafters, Inc., 498 F.3d 972, 974 (9th Cir. 2007)(followed)
- Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2014)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…