Ortiz v. Cool Freight Express, Inc.

[5] 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [7] DISTRICT OF NEVADA [8] * * * 9 MARTIN ORTIZ, Case No. 3:20-CV-00379-LRH-WGC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 COOL FREIGHT EXPRESS INC., TARANDEEP SINGH, 1 – 10, and ROE 13 CORPORATIONS 1 – 10, inclusive, 14 Defendants. [15] 16 Before the Court is Martin Ortiz’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to remand to state court dated June 17 26, 2020 (ECF No. 11). Cool Freight Express Inc. and Tarandeep Singh (“Defendants”) responded 18 to the motion (ECF No. 13) and Plaintiff subsequently replied (ECF No. 14). Also, before the 19 Court is the parties’ stipulation to amend the original complaint (ECF No. 21). For the reasons 20 stated below, the Court will grant the Plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court, and find that the 21 parties’ stipulation to amend the original complaint is moot. 22 I. Background 23 This case involves a motor vehicle collision which occurred on December 10, 2019. ECF 24 No. 11 at 1. Because of the collision, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants in state court on April 25 10, 2020. Id. Defendants removed the action to federal court in June 2020. ECF No. 1. 26 In the Notice of Removal, Defendants allege that “there is complete diversity between the 27 parties and more than $75,000 [is] in controversy.” ECF No. 1 at 2. Specifically, as it relates to the 1 counsel on June 2, 10, 15, 16, and 19, Plaintiff’s claimed damages are believed to be well in excess 2 of $75,000.00…” Id. 3 Plaintiff contests the amount in controversy. In his motion to remand, Plaintiff states that 4 “Defendants’ Notice of Removal does not include evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds 5 the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold.” ECF No. 11 at 2. In their response, Defendants contend that 6 based on representations by Plaintiff—concerning the nature of the injuries, the scope of the 7 medical treatment, the time of lost wages, and the type of vehicle damage—one could reasonably 8 surmise that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. ECF No. 13 at 3. The Court was provided 9 with two emails between the parties regarding the amount in controversy. ECF No 13-1, 13-2. In 10 his reply, Plaintiff maintains that Defendants are making conclusory assumptions regarding the 11 amount in controversy based solely on hearsay statements, and not by a preponderance of the 12 evidence. ECF No. 14. These arguments largely form the basis of this order. 13 As an aside, the parties have also stipulated to amend the original complaint outlining the 14 exact time and location the motor vehicle collision occurred, as well as dismissing the claim of 15 intentional infliction of emotional distress. ECF No. 21. 16 II. Legal Standard 17 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 , “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district 18 courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the 19 defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the 20 place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a). A district court has original jurisdiction 21 over civil actions where the suit is between citizens of different states and the amount in 22 controversy, exclusive of interests and costs, exceeds $75,000.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a). “[T]he 23 removing defendant bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 24 amount in controversy exceeds $[75],000.00.” Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398 , 25 404 (9th Cir. 1996). 26 In determining whether the defendant has established that diversity jurisdiction exists, the 27 district court must first consider whether it is “facially apparent” from the complaint that the [1] 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir.1997). Generally, courts apply a mechanical test to determine whether 2 the amount in controversy requirement has been met when a case is removed to federal court: “The 3 district court simply reads the ad damnum clause of the complaint to determine whether the matter 4 in controversy exceeds” $75,000.00. Id. at 375 . If it is apparent to the court that the claim was 5 made in good faith, then the value of the claim controls for purposes of removal, unless it appears 6 “to a legal certainty that the plaintiff cannot recover the amount claimed.” Id. 7 However, if a plaintiff's complaint fails to specify damages, or specifies damages in an 8 amount less than the jurisdictional minimum, the defendant must show, by a preponderance of the 9 evidence, facts demonstrating that the amount involved in the litigation exceeds the statutory 10 jurisdictional threshold. Sanchez, 102 F.3d at 403–04. “Under this burden, the defendant must 11 provide evidence establishing that it is ‘more likely than not’ that the amount in controversy 12 exceeds that amount.” Id. at 404 . Consequently, “jurisdiction may [not] be maintained by mere 13 averment.” McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936); see also Sanchez, [14] 102 F.3d at 403 . 15 Removal of a case to district court may be challenged by motion and a federal court must 16 remand a matter if there is a lack of jurisdiction. See generally, 28 U.S.C. § 1441 . Removal statutes 17 are construed restrictively and in favor of remanding a case to state court. See Shamrock Oil & 18 Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-109 (1941); see also, Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 , 19 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 20 III. Discussion 21 It is undisputed that the parties are diverse for diversity jurisdiction purposes, but Plaintiff 22 argues that Defendants’ notice of removal is insufficient to prove, by a preponderance of the 23 evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. See ECF No. 11. 24 In order to meet their burden for removal, a defendant must present evidence that the 25 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. McCaa v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance 26 Company, 330 F. Supp. 2d 1143, 1149 (D. Nev. 2004); see also, Gaus, 980 F.2d at 567 . In his 27 complaint, Plaintiff requests damages in excess of $15,000; for past and future special damages 1 || incurred, and to be incurred in connection with this action (unspecified); for punitive damages 2 || (unspecified); and for such other and further relief this Court may deem just and proper 3 || (unspecified). ECF No. 1-3, at 13. 4 As noted, Defendants argue, that based on the nature of the injury and their correspondence 5 || with the Plaintiff, they believe that the claimed damages are to be well in excess of $75,000. ECF 6 || No. 1 at 2. Since the Plaintiff contests the Defendant’s assertion of the amount in controversy, any 7 || estimation of damages based solely on the nature of the injury is speculative without more 8 || evidence. See Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir.2003) 9 || CConclusory allegations as to the amount in controversy are insufficient”). The emails provided 10 || by the Defendant are inconclusive and provide no specific estimation as to damages.! Additionally, 11 || there is nothing in the record related to the injury which conclusively indicates the amount in 12 || controversy exceeds $75,000. To be sure, this does not mean to suggest what the actual amount in 13 || controversy is. Rather, the available record suggests that this Court lacks jurisdiction, as it is 14 || sustained largely on “mere averment”. McNutt, 298 U.S. at 189 . 15 Briefly, because of this ruling on the dispositive motion, the parties’ stipulation to amend 16 || the complaint is ruled to be moot. 17 IV. Conclusion 18 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to State Court (ECF 19 |} No. 11) is GRANTED. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Stipulation to Amend the Complaint (ECF No. 21) 21 || is DENIED as moot. [22] 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 DATED this 21st day of October, 2020. 26 LA . HICKS 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 || |! The Court was provided two emails between the parties. Both are merely requests by the Defendants for specific estimations regarding the injuries. Neither contain an estimation. ECF No. 13-1, 13-2.