`Case 2:16—cv—O5182—SVW—FFM Document 27 Filed 08/24/16 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:471
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`2: 16-cv-05182-SVW-FFM
`
`Date
`
`8/24/16
`
`Title
`
`JOSE LUISE M4RTHVEZ AND M4LCOLM NEAL V SNAPCHAT
`
`Present: The Honorable STEPHEN V. WILSON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`Pa11l M. Cruz
`
`Deputy Clerk
`
`N/A
`
`Court Reporter / Recorder
`
`Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
`
`Attorneys Present for Defendants:
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`Proceedings:
`
`IN CHAMBERS ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND [17]
`
`I.
`
`Background
`
`This case was removed from State court on the basis of CAFA jurisdiction. Since that time,
`Defendants have filed a motion to compel arbitration [Dkt. 21] and Plaintiffs have filed a motion to
`remand [Dkt. 17], a motion to continue the hearing on the motion to compel arbitration until this Court
`decided the motion to remand [Dkt. 22], and an ex parte motion for shortening time on Plaintiff’s motion
`to continue the hearing on the motion to compel [Dkt. 23]. Since this Court now DENIES the motion
`remand, the motion to continue hearing and the ex parte motion are rendered moot.
`
`H.
`
`Analysis
`
`Removal is appropriate for “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of
`the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441. CAFA grants original jurisdiction to
`District Courts. 28 U.S.C. § l332(d)(2). Therefore, the State corut properly removed this action under
`CAFA. Dkt. 1.
`
`Plaintiffs assert that Defendants were required to establish Art. III standing in order to remove the
`case. There is no authority, through statute or case law, that a Defendant must assert or establish Art. HI
`standing in order to remove a case to Federal court. In fact, it is a common occurrence for a case to be
`properly removed to District Court only to later be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See
`
`CV-90 (10/08)
`
`CIVIL IWINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 1 of 2
`
`Initials of Preparer
`
`PMC
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-05182-SVW-FFM Document 27 Filed 08/24/16 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:472
`Case 2:16—cv—O5182—SVW—FFM Document 27 Filed 08/24/16 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:472
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`2: 16-cv-05 182-SVW—FFM
`
`Date
`
`8/24/16
`
`Title
`
`JOSE LUISE M4RTINEZ AND IWALCOLM NEAL V. SNAPCHAT
`
`Dkt. 20 at pg. 6.
`
`Further, 28 U.S.C . § l447(c) authorizes remand when “at any time before final judgment it appears
`that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” Curiously, Plaintiff's motion to remand contains
`no allegation that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the motion to remand and the
`request for fees and costs is DENIED. The motion for a continuance and the ex parte motion are rendered
`moot. The motion to compel arbitration will proceed as currently scheduled.
`
`CV-90 (10/08)
`
`CIVIL ISIINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 2 of 2
`
`Initials of Preparer
`
`PMC
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
