Automated Summary
Key Facts
Plaintiff Johnny R. Walker filed a negligence claim against Defendant Dennis D. McCarty in Riverside Superior Court on October 10, 2018. Defendant removed the case to federal court on April 8, 2019, asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2). The court denied Plaintiff's motion to remand, finding complete diversity exists because Defendant, a Canadian citizen with no U.S. legal status, is not a California citizen despite being domiciled there. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, satisfying jurisdictional requirements. The August 19, 2019 hearing was vacated.
Issues
The court addressed the legal question of whether a Canadian citizen domiciled in California without lawful permanent resident (LPR) status qualifies as a 'citizen of a foreign state' under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) to establish diversity jurisdiction. The court concluded that non-LPR foreign citizens domiciled in the same state as the plaintiff do not negate diversity jurisdiction, as the exception in § 1332(a)(2) applies only to lawful permanent residents.
Holdings
The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand, determining that diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(2) because the defendant is a Canadian citizen without legal status in the United States, making him a 'citizen of a foreign state' and not a lawful permanent resident domiciled in California.
Remedies
- The Court denied Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 17) as the motion was appropriate for resolution without a hearing.
- The August 19, 2019 hearing was vacated following the denial of the Motion to Remand.
Legal Principles
The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) to determine diversity jurisdiction exists between a citizen of a state (California) and a citizen of a foreign state (Canada) who is not a lawful permanent resident in the United States. This principle establishes that federal courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions between a state citizen and a foreign citizen where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the foreign citizen lacks U.S. legal status.
Precedent Name
- Atesom v. Guam Mem'l Hosp. Auth.
- Filmkraft Prods. India Pvt, Ltd. v. Spektrum Entm't, Inc.
- Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain
- Asare-Antw v. Wells Fargo, N.A.
- Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co.
Cited Statute
- Judicial Code (28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2))
- Judicial Code (28 U.S.C. § 1332(a))
- Judicial Code (28 U.S.C. § 1441(a))
Judge Name
JESUS G. BERNAL
Passage Text
- The Court may lack jurisdiction over an action between a California citizen and a foreign citizen if the foreign citizen is 'lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and [is] domiciled in California. See id. Here, however, Defendant has no legal status in the United States. This action thus does not fall within the exception for permanent residents residing in the same state.
- To be a citizen of a state, a natural person must first be a citizen of the United States. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 828 (1989)). Here, Defendant asserts – and Plaintiff does not dispute – that Defendant is a citizen of Canada with no legal status in the United States. Accordingly, he is not a citizen of California, but a 'citizen[]... of a foreign state' within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2).
- Because this action is between a citizen of California and a citizen of a foreign state who is not a lawful permanent resident, diversity jurisdiction is present. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED.