Adamwicz v. Keolis Transit Services LLC

[5] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [6] DISTRICT OF NEVADA [7] _____________________________________ 8 JENNYLYNN ADAMWICZ, 9 Plaintiff, [10] vs. Case No. 3:22-CV-00033-LRH-CSD [11] KEOLIS TRANSIT SERVICES, LLC, a ORDER 12 foreign corporation, et al., [13] Defendants. [14] 15 Plaintiff Jennylynn Adamwicz initiated this action in the Second Judicial District Court for 16 Washoe County, Nevada on August 20, 2021. On January 21, 2022, Defendant Keolis Transit 17 Services, LLC (“KTS”) filed a notice of removal to this Court (ECF No. 1),1 asserting diversity 18 jurisdiction. 19 After review of the complaint, Defendant’s petition for removal and statement of removal, 20 the Court finds that it requires more evidence to determine whether it has subject matter 21 jurisdiction over this case. While it appears that the parties are of diverse citizenship,2 Defendant 22 has not demonstrated that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 23 BACKGROUND 24 Adamwicz alleges she was injured while attempting to board one of the buses that KTS 25 operates. The Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County (“RTC”) contracts with [26] 27 1 Refers to the Court’s docket entry number 28 2 Plaintiff alleges she is a Californian and Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Massachusetts. (ECF No. 1.) 1 KTS to operate certain bus services in Washoe County. KTS hires, trains, supervises, and employs 2 the drivers who drive the buses. Although the complaint listed the RTC, the entity was 3 subsequently dismissed and KTS is the only remaining defendant. (ECF No. 1-4 at 1.) 4 Adamwicz’s state court complaint alleges negligence, negligence per se, negligent hiring, 5 training, supervision, and respondent superior/vicarious liability. (ECF No. 1-2.) Adamwicz’s 6 prayer for relief demands, “general damages in excess of $15,000.00, special damages in excess 7 of $15,000.00, costs of suit and attorney’s fees, judgment for interest and further relief as this Court 8 deems just and proper.” (ECF No. 1-2 at 7.) KTS’s state court answer affirmative defenses allege 9 comparative negligence and failure to mitigate damages. (ECF No. 1-5 at 3.) 10 KTS premises removal on diversity jurisdiction and the amount in controversy exceeds 11 $75,000. (ECF No. 1.) Specifically, KTS alleges Adamwicz is a Californian and KTS is a wholly 12 owned subsidiary of Keolis Transit America, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place 13 of business in Massachusetts and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.00 (ECF No. 1.) 14 DISCUSSION 15 If a district court discovers it lacks original jurisdiction over a removed claim it must 16 remand the case to state court. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004) 17 (“We are obligated to consider sua sponte whether we have subject matter jurisdiction.”). A 18 defendant may remove any civil action from state court to the federal district court “embracing” 19 the place where the action is pending if that district court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1441(a). A federal district court has original jurisdiction where (1) the action is between citizens 21 of different states, and (2) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and 22 costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a). Here, Adamwicz does not contest diversity of citizenship and it is clear 23 to the Court that complete diversity exists between the parties.3 24 To determine if the amount in controversy requirement is met, the Court first considers 25 what is “facially apparent” from the complaint. Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 26 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997). In doing so, the Court simply reads the complaint to determine the amount [27] 28 3 Plaintiff alleges she is a Californian and Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Massachusetts. 1 in controversy. Id. at 375. In Nevada state courts, where demanded damages exceed $15,000.00, 2 the pleader must request damages “in excess of $15,000.00,” without further specification of the 3 amount. Nev. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(4). 4 Adamwicz’s state court complaint alleges negligence, negligence per se, negligent hiring, 5 training, supervision, and respondent superior/vicarious liability. (ECF No. 1-2.) Adamwicz’s 6 prayer for relief demands, “general damages in excess of $15,000.00, special damages in excess 7 of $15,000.00, costs of suit and attorney’s fees, judgment for interest and further relief as this Court 8 deems just and proper.” (ECF No. 1-2 at 7.) In Adamwicz’s petition for exemption from 9 arbitration, she only listed medical expenses incurred to date in the amount of $30,543.65. (ECF 10 No. 1-6 at 3.) 11 When the amount of damages is unclear from plaintiff’s state court complaint, the 12 defendant has the burden of proving “by a preponderance of the evidence,” that the required 13 amount in controversy is met. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 14 1996). Here, the burden to demonstrate that the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000.00, 15 rests with KTS and the Court decides whether that burden has been satisfied. 16 To satisfy this burden, the defendant “must set forth the underlying facts supporting its 17 assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory minimum.” Muniz v. Pilot Travel 18 Centers LLC, Case No. CIV. S-07-0325 FCD EFB, 2007 WL 1302504 , at *3 (E.D. Cal. 19 May 1, 2007); see also Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). Courts in this circuit 20 “may consider facts in the removal petition” to determine whether the defendant has established 21 the requisite amount in controversy. Singer, 116 F.3d at 377 . However, the defendant’s assertion 22 that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum cannot be supported by 23 conclusory allegations. Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089 , 1090–91 (9th 24 Cir. 2003). In Valdez, the Ninth Circuit found that one supporting statement offered by an insurer 25 in its removal petition was not sufficient to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the 26 amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.00. 372 F.3d at 1117 (rejecting the insurer’s claim that 27 “upon information and belief, [it] submit[s] that the amount in controversy . . . exceeds 28 $75,000.00.”). The Valdez Court concluded that a statement based solely on the defendant’s “‘[ijnformation and belief’ hardly constitutes proof by a preponderance of the evidence.” /d. 2| “Where doubt regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court.” 3 | Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090 . 4 Here, in asserting that the amount in controversy requirement has been satisfied, KTS relies 5 | solely on the allegations in Adamwicz’s complaint and petition for exemption from arbitration 6| (ECF Nos. 1-2, 1-6.) However, the Court finds that it is not facially apparent from the complaint 7 | that more than $75,000 is in controversy. To the contrary, based on the allegations in the 8 | complaint, a reasonable inference is that the amount in controversy is less than the jurisdictional 9| threshold.* Accordingly, jurisdiction has not been established. 10 The Court will provide Defendant additional time to present “summary-judgment-type 11 | evidence” showing by a preponderance of the evidence that this case meets § 1332(a)’s amount in 12 | controversy requirement. 13 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant is granted twenty (20) days from entry of 14 | this Order to establish the minimum amount in controversy for federal jurisdiction. Plaintiff is 15 | granted ten (10) days to file an opposition. No reply is required. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. [17] 18 DATED this 25" day of January, 2022. 19 ~ [20] 21 U YR. HICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE [24] 25 4 The Court notes in particular that, according to the petition for exemption from arbitration, Adamwicz only asserts medical bills in excess of $30,543.65. (ECF No. 1-6 at 3.) The 26 | Court further notes that, although Plaintiff seeks general and special damages, the mere possibility of a damages award is not sufficient to prove that the amount in controversy requirement has been met. Instead, Defendant must present evidence indicating that the amount of damages Plaintiff seeks will, more likely than not, exceed the amount needed to increase the amount in controversy 28 | to more than $75,000. See McCaa v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, 330 F. Supp. 2d 1143, 1149 (D. Nev. 2004). -4-