United States District Court, D. Hawaii
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S
OBJECTION TO REMOVAL
S.C. Chang, United States Magistrate Judge
October 10, 2017, Plaintiff Abi Assaye
(“Plaintiff”) filed an Objection to Removal
(“Objection”), which the Court construes as a
Motion to Remand. At the Court's direction, Defendant
United Airlines, Inc. (“Defendant”) filed an
Opposition on October 20, 2017, and a Supplemental Opposition
on October 27, 2017.
Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a
hearing pursuant to Rule 7.2(d) of the Local Rules of
Practice for the U.S. District Court for the District of
Hawaii. After careful consideration of the parties'
submissions and the applicable law, the Court HEREBY
RECOMMENDS that the Objection be DENIED for the reasons
September 7, 2017, Plaintiff commenced this action in the
Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii.
October 3, 2017, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal
(“Notice”). Defendant subsequently filed a Motion
to Dismiss Complaint on October 9, 2017. The present
seeks remand of this action to state court on two grounds: 1)
there are no federal claims asserted in the Complaint and 2)
diversity of citizenship is lacking because Defendant is a
citizen of Hawaii given that it conducts business within the
28 U.S.C. § 1441, a defendant may remove a civil action
brought in a state court to federal district court if the
district court has original jurisdiction. Abrego Abrego
v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 679-80 (9th Cir.
2006). “Removal . . . statutes are ‘strictly
construed, ' and a ‘defendant seeking removal has
the burden to establish that removal is proper and any doubt
is resolved against removability.'” Hawaii ex
rel. Louie v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 761 F.3d 1027,
1034 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Luther v. Countrywide Home
Loans Serv. LP, 533 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir.2008));
Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1252
(9th Cir. 2006); California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy,
Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004).
is a strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, which
“means that the defendant always has the burden of
establishing that removal is proper, ' and that the court
resolves all ambiguity in favor of remand to state
court.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d
1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gaus v. Miles,
Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam));
California ex rel. Lockyer, 375 F.3d at 838
(“[T]he burden of establishing federal jurisdiction
falls to the party invoking the statute.”);
Durham, 445 F.3d at 1252 (Courts resolve any doubts
about the propriety of removal in favor of remanding the case
to state court). Courts should presume that a case lies
outside the limited jurisdiction of the federal courts.
Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1042.
Defendant did not Remove Based on the Existence of a
argument concerning the lack of a federal claim is untenable.
Defendant removed this action on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the absence a federal claim does
not provide a basis for remand.
Diversity Jurisdiction Exists
alleges that diversity jurisdiction exists because the
parties are diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds
$75, 000. In an effort to refute the existence of diversity
jurisdiction, Plaintiff contends that “[u]nder the long
arm statute the [sic] State of Hawaii, Defendant United is a