Vasquez v. Target Corporation et al

Filing 14

ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. 10 ) is denied. See order for details. Signed by Judge Neil V. Wake on 5/25/16. (NKS)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

No. CV-16-01135-PHX-NVW

Martha Vasquez,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
Target
Corporation,
a
Minnesota
corporation; Target Stores, Inc. (FN), a
Minnesota corporation; John Does and Jane
Does 1-10; ABC Corporations 1-10; XYZ
Partnerships 1-10,
Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendants Target Corporation and Target Stores, Inc., removed Plaintiff’s state
court action to this Court, alleging diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1 at 1–2.) Although
Plaintiff’s complaint did not specify the amount of damages claimed, Plaintiff’s demand
letter to Defendants proposed a $95,000 settlement. (Id. at 2; Doc. 13-1 at 7.)
Plaintiff moves to remand, arguing Defendants have not demonstrated the amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Doc. 10.) On Plaintiff’s view, “[i]n order for federal
court jurisdiction to exist in this case, the Court must determine, as a matter of law, that
Plaintiffs [sic] will recover damages in an amount sufficient to reach the jurisdictional
requirement of this Court.” (Id. at 5.)
Plaintiff is half-right: Defendants must demonstrate that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 839 (9th

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Cir. 2002). But the Court need not find that Plaintiff will actually recover that much.
The relevant inquiry “is not whether the damages are greater than the requisite amount,
but whether a fact finder might legally conclude that they are.” Kopp v. Kopp, 280 F.3d
883, 885 (8th Cir. 2002). The jurisdictional threshold is satisfied if the jury reasonably
could award more than $75,000, even if they ultimately award less. Id.
Plaintiff’s demand of $95,000 is relevant evidence of the amount in controversy
because it appears to reflect a reasonable estimate of her claim. Cohn, 281 F.3d at 840.
Plaintiff has made no attempt to disavow her letter or offer contrary evidence. Thus, the
demand letter is sufficient to establish the amount in controversy. Id.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 10) is
denied.
Dated this 25th day of May, 2016.

13
14
15
Neil V. Wake
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2