California Case Summaries

Grigorian v. Hambardzumyan — C.D. Cal. Remands Car Accident Suit Where Hertz Dismissal Eliminates Diversity Jurisdiction

Unreported / Non-Citable

Case
Grigorian v. Hambardzumyan
Court
U.S. District Court — Central District of California
Date Decided
2026-01-09
Docket No.
2:25-cv-07294
Status
Unreported / Non-Citable
Topics
Removal jurisdiction; complete diversity; effect of dismissed defendant on diversity analysis

Background

Suren Grigorian and Hayk Petrosyan filed a car-accident suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court against driver Armen Hambardzumyan and The Hertz Corporation in June 2025. Hertz removed the action to federal court, then was subsequently dismissed from the case. The remaining parties — plaintiffs and Hambardzumyan — were all California residents. Plaintiffs moved to remand for lack of complete diversity. Hambardzumyan, the only remaining defendant, did not oppose.

The Court’s Holding

Magistrate Judge Stephanie S. Christensen granted the motion to remand. The court explained that diversity is determined from the face of the complaint (Gould v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.; In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig.), and the complaint clearly alleged that plaintiffs and Hambardzumyan are California residents. With Hertz dismissed and no longer a party — and Hambardzumyan’s opposition constructively withdrawn by his nonparticipation — the burden to establish removal jurisdiction could not be met. Without complete diversity, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

Key Takeaways

  • When a removing defendant is dismissed from the case, the diversity analysis defaults back to the parties remaining; if complete diversity is lacking, remand is required.
  • The party who removed bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction even after their dismissal — and that burden cannot be met if the remaining parties are non-diverse.
  • An unopposed motion to remand will be granted where the face of the complaint shows lack of complete diversity.
  • Remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) is required “at any time before final judgment” if the court determines it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

Why It Matters

This is a clean illustration of how the dismissal of one diverse defendant can defeat federal jurisdiction in a multi-defendant removed case. Practitioners should remember that diversity is monitored throughout the case; the dismissal of the diverse party that removed the case can require remand to state court.

Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top