Hotel Revenue Resources, Inc. v. Shane V. Gartley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. CV 25-10135-DMG (SSCx) Date October 29, 2025 Title Hotel Revenue Resources, Inc. v. Shane V. Gartley Page 1 of 2 Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEREK DAVIS NOT REPORTED Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present None Present Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS—ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO STATE COURT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION Defendant Shane V. Gartley removed this action to this Court on October 22, 2025, asserting the existence of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)(1). [Doc. # 1 (“NOR”).] Plaintiff Hotel Revenue Resources, Inc. (“HRR”) filed its Complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging four causes of action against Gartley: (1) breach of contract, (2) intentional interference with economic relationships, (3) unfair business practices in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code sections 17200 et seq., and (4) breach of fiduciary duty. [Doc. # 1-2 (“Compl.”).] HRR alleges Gartley, a former officer and employee of HRR, signed and violated a Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreement (“NDA”) by taking HRR’s confidential and proprietary information. Id. at ¶¶ 6–24. With this information, HRR alleges Gartley started a corporation in competition with HRR and solicited HRR’s customers to transfer their business to Gartley’s corporation. Id. HRR requests compensatory damages, injunctive relief, restitution, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Prayer for Relief at ¶¶ 1–6. If a complaint does not specify a particular amount of damages, then the removing defendant must show that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015). A district court “may ‘require parties to submit summary-judgment-type evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time of removal.’” Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326 , 1335–36 (5th Cir. 1995)). “[A] defendant cannot establish removal jurisdiction by mere speculation and conjecture, with unreasonable assumptions.” Ibarra, 775 F.3d at 1197 . Gartley claims attorneys’ fees and costs “coupled with” “alleged actual damages” would reach the requisite amount in controversy. NOR at ¶ 9. Gartley offers no estimate or evidence in support of what HRR’s actual damages could be. Id. Moreover, Gartley’s claim that HRR will bill at least 400 hours at $400 per hour is pure speculation. Id. Gartley’s single citation to UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. CV 25-10135-DMG (SSCx) Date October 29, 2025 Title Hotel Revenue Resources, Inc. v. Shane V. Gartley Page 2 of 2 attorneys’ fees and costs awarded in a completely different type of action (consumer anti-spam law) is inapplicable. Id. (citing Balsam v. Trancos, Inc., 203 Cal. App. 4th 1083, 1104 (2012)). Accordingly, because it is not clear that the amount in controversy requirement has been satisfied, Gartley is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be remanded to the Los Angeles County Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Gartley shall file a response by no later than November 12, 2025. Failure to timely file a satisfactory response by this deadline will result in the remand of this action. HRR may file a reply, if any, by November 28, 2025. Each party’s brief, exclusive of supporting declarations, shall not exceed 10 pages. IT IS SO ORDERED.