finding a district court has discretion in granting or denying jurisdictional discovery
How later courts described this case
- finding a district court has discretion in granting or denying jurisdictional discovery
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL
Case No. 2:25-cv-01346-MCS-RAO Date May 20, 2025
Title Alexander v. Whitfield
Present: The Honorable Mark C. Scarsi, United States District Judge
Stephen Montes Kerr —_———NotReported
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):
None Present None Present
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE: MOTION TO REMAND AND MOTION
TO COMPEL ARBITRATION (ECF Nos. 15, 20) (JS-6)
Defendant Russell N. Bacon removed this action from Los Angeles County
Superior Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal, ECF No.
1.) Plaintiffs Travis Alexander and Crux Wealth Advisors, LLC, filed a motion to
remand. (Mot., ECF No. 15.) Defendants Garry D. Whitfield and Russell N. Bacon
filed an opposition brief, (Opp’n, ECF No. 18), and Plaintiffs filed a reply, (Reply,
ECF No. 22.) The Court deemed the motion appropriate for decision without oral
argument. (Mins., ECF No. 25.) Having considered the parties’ briefing, the Court
remands the case.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction, having subject-matter jurisdiction
only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A defendant may remove a civil
action in state court to federal court if the federal court has original jurisdiction. 28
U.S.C. § 1441(a). To invoke diversity jurisdiction, a party must demonstrate there is
complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and that the amount in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28
Page 1 of 3 CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk SMO
U.S.C. § 1332(a). There is a “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction, and
the removing party bears the burden of proving that removal is proper. Gaus v. Miles,
Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there
is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Id.
II. DISCUSSION
In his Notice of Removal, Mr. Bacon invokes the Court’s diversity
jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal ¶¶ 3–9.) Mr. Bacon argued on information and
belief that “plaintiff Travis Alexander . . . was, at the time the action was
commenced in state court, and still is a resident and citizen of the State of
Washington.” (Id. ¶ 5.) In their motion to remand, Plaintiffs dispute this claim and
aver that “Mr. Alexander is a citizen of California.” (Mot. 6.) Mr. Alexander also
submitted a declaration attesting that he is a citizen of California and maintains a
residence in Long Beach, California. (Alexander Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 15.) In
response, Defendants suggest that Mr. Alexander is a Washington resident because
his alleged injury occurred when he resided in Washington; he owns real estate in
Washington; he is registered to vote in Washington; and in another case that predates
this one, Mr. Alexander did not dispute that he was a citizen of Washington. (Opp’n
2–3, 5; see generally Parseghian Decl., ECF No. 19.) Defendants alternatively
request jurisdictional discovery. (Opp’n 7 n.2.)
In removal cases, diversity of citizenship must exist at the time of filing and
removal. Strotek Corp. v. Air Transp. Ass’n of Am., 300 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir.
2002). A natural person is a citizen of the state in which the person is domiciled.
Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). Domicile is a
place a person “resides with the intention to remain or to which she intends to
return.” Id. Here, Defendant offers no argument or evidence that Mr. Alexander was
a Washington state citizen on January 29, 2025, when Plaintiffs filed their complaint,
or on February 18, 2025, when Mr. Bacon removed it. Defendants’ proffered
evidence only supports an inference that Mr. Alexander may have been a Washington
citizen in the past but is not persuasive in establishing that Mr. Alexander was still a
Washington citizen at the time the case was initiated or removed.
In contrast, Mr. Alexander submitted a sworn declaration that he is currently
a citizen of California. In the Court’s view, this is sufficient to establish his California
citizenship, and Defendants have not met their burden in showing that Mr. Alexander
is a Washington citizen. See Bernal v. Comerica Bank, No. CV 10-04631 MMM
(FMOx), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88688, at *9–10 (C.D. Cal. July 30, 2010) (stating
that a party can establish citizenship by submitting a sworn declaration); see also
Brown v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 19cv537-MMA (JLB), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
113854, at *6 (S.D. Cal. July 9, 2019) (considering a party’s sworn testimony about
its citizenship as dispositive). The Court also denies Defendants’ request for
jurisdictional discovery because Defendants have not provided the Court with any
guidance as to what additional facts, aside from Plaintiff’s own testimony that he is
a California citizen, are necessary to determine Mr. Alexander’s citizenship.
Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding a district court
has discretion in granting or denying jurisdictional discovery). Therefore, because
Mr. Alexander and his wholly owned limited liability company, Crux Wealth
Advisors, are citizens of California, and Mr. Whitfield too is a citizen of California,
(see NOR ¶¶ 6–7 (alleging Mr. Whitfield’s citizenship and Mr. Alexander’s
ownership of Crux)), complete diversity of citizenship does not exist among the
parties, and this Court lacks jurisdiction.
III. CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs’ motion to remand is granted. Finding no other basis upon which to
exercise jurisdiction, the Court determines that subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking.
Therefore, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, (ECF No. 20),
without prejudice to renewal before a court of competent jurisdiction. Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1447(c), the Court remands the case to the Los Angeles County Superior
Court, No. 25LBCV00222. The Court directs the Clerk to effect the remand
immediately and close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.