Tonia Buell v. PepsiCo, Inc.

1 JS-6 — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 10 — 11 TONIA BUELL, Case No. 2:24-cv-01832-FLA (KSx) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING ACTION FOR 13 v. LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 14 PEPSICO, INC., et al., 15 Defendant. — 16 — — 17 — 18 RULING 19 On September 21, 2023, Plaintiff Tonia Buell (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint 20 against Defendants PepsiCo, Inc. (“Pepsi”), Stadco LA, LLC (“Stadco”), and DOES 1 21 through 20 (collectively, “Defendants”) in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, 22 based on an incident at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, California, where she allegedly 23 fell off a swing. Dkt. 1-2 (“Compl”) ¶¶ 19–20 (“Ms. Buell sat on the swing and its 24 seat immediately and unexpectedly tilted backward. [She] was instantly thrown to the 25 ground …”). The Complaint asserts state-law claims for: (1) negligence; (2) negligent 26 training, supervision, and retention; and (3) premises liability. Id. at 1. 27 On March 6, 2024, Pepsi removed the action to this court based on alleged 28 diversity jurisdiction. See Dkt. 1. In its Notice of Removal, Pepsi alleges the court 1 has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the amount in 2 controversy exceeds $75,000. Dkt. 1 ¶ 4. 3 On April 22, 2024, the court ordered the parties to show cause why the action 4 should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to an insufficient 5 amount in controversy. Dkt. 20. Pepsi and Plaintiff filed responses. Dkt. 21 (“Pepsi’s 6 Resp.”); Dkt. 22 (“Pl.’s Resp.”). Stadco did not file a response. 7 Having reviewed the Notice of Removal and Plaintiff and Pepsi’s Responses, 8 and for the following reasons, the court finds Pepsi fails to establish subject matter 9 jurisdiction and accordingly REMANDS this action to the Los Angeles County 10 Superior Court. 11 DISCUSSION 12 Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power 13 authorized by the Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 14 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. District courts are 15 presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the 16 record. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 , 342 n. 3 (2006). 17 Additionally, federal courts have an obligation to examine jurisdiction sua sponte 18 before proceeding to the merits of a case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 19 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). 20 Federal courts have jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law or 21 where each plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship and the 22 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. 23 §§ 1331, 1332(a). Thus, a notice removing an action from state court to federal court 24 must include “a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the 25 jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 26 U.S. 81 , 89 (2014). Where “the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the 27 defendant’s allegation” concerning the amount in controversy, “both sides [shall] 28 submit proof,” and the court may then decide whether the defendant has proven the 1 amount in controversy “by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at 88–89. “Federal 2 jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first 3 instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). It is Defendant’s 4 burden as the removing party to justify this court’s exercise of jurisdiction. Id. at 567 . 5 Here, the amount of damages Plaintiff seeks cannot be determined from the 6 Complaint, as it does not set forth a specific amount. See Compl. Pepsi, however, 7 contends the amount in controversy is met because Plaintiff refuses to stipulate that 8 the amount in controversy is less than $75,000. Pepsi’s Resp. ¶ 3. However, “district 9 courts in this circuit have persuasively rejected the proposition that the amount in 10 controversy can be established by a plaintiff’s refusal to stipulate to the amount in 11 controversy.” Schiller v. David's Bridal, Inc., Case No. 1:10-cv-00616-AWI, 2010 12 WL 2793650 , at *4–5 (E.D. Cal. July 14, 2010) (collecting cases). “[T]he burden is 13 on the defendant, not the plaintiff, to establish by a preponderance of evidence the 14 amount in controversy.” Id., at *5 . “The opponent of federal jurisdiction (typically 15 the plaintiff in the removal context) has no obligation to stipulate to damages or assist 16 the other party in establishing the amount in controversy.” Id. 17 Pepsi next points to Plaintiff’s claim that her “realistic provable damages 18 exceed $10,000,000.00.” Pepsi’s Resp. ¶¶ 6, 8; Dkt. 16 (“Rule 26(f) Report”) at 8. A 19 statement of damages “is relevant evidence of the amount in controversy if it appears 20 to reflect a reasonable estimate of the plaintiff’s claim.” Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 21 F.3d 837 , 840 (9th Cir. 2002). “A plaintiff’s damage estimate will not establish the 22 amount in controversy, however, if it appears to be only a bold optimistic prediction.” 23 Romsa v. Ikea U.S. W., Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-05552-MMM (JEMx), 2014 WL 24 4273265, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). 25 Plaintiff’s estimate of $10,000,000 in damages is clearly a “bold optimistic 26 prediction” and not a reasonable estimate of her claims. See id. (“The leap from 27 $4,597.77 in medical expenses incurred to [defendant’s] assertion that [plaintiff’s son] 28 has suffered damages in excess of $75,000 because he cries a lot and wakes up several 1 | times a night is difficult to credit. [Defendant] cites no facts that indicate a damages 2 || award anywhere near $75,000 — let alone $1,000,000 — is likely.”). Significantly, 3 | Plaintiff cites no facts to explain how she determined the $10,000,000 amount. See 4 | Rule 26(f) Report at 7-8; see also Romsa, 2014 WL 4273265 , at *2 (remanding action 5 | where Plaintiffs statement of damages did not explain how he arrived at the damages 6 | estimated); Schroeder v. Petsmart, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-01561-FMO (AGRx), 2019 7 | WL 1895573, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2019) (same); Mata v. Home Depot U.S.A., 8 | Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-01758-FMO (AFMx), 2022 WL 3586206 , at *2 (C.D. Cal. 9 | Aug. 22, 2022) (same); see also Owens v. Westwood Coll. Inc., 2013 WL 4083624 , 10 | at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2013) (finding plaintiffs settlement demand letters could 11 | not be used to establish the amount in controversy requirement because they 12 | “demand[ed] an arbitrary settlement figure, with no showing of how [the] figure was 13 | calculated”). 14 Given that any doubt regarding the existence of subject matter jurisdiction must 15 | be resolved in favor of remanding the action to state court, see Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 , 16 | the court is not persuaded Pepsi has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that 17 | the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold. Therefore, there is no 18 | basis for diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 . 19 CONCLUSION 20 For the foregoing reasons, the court REMANDS the action to the Los Angeles 21 | County Superior Court, Case No. 24TRCV00356. All dates and deadlines in this 22 | court are VACATED. The clerk of the court shall close the action administratively. — 23 — 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. — 25 — 26 | Dated: May 15, 2024 07 FERNAND@O L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge — 28 —