Lisa Leage v. Bechtel Construction Company et al

Filing 15

ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: granting 8 plaintiffs Motion to Remand. cc order, docket, remand letter to San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, No. CV 12835. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (Attachments: # 1 remand letter) . (lc). Modified on 2/28/2013 (lc).

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

cc: order, docket, remand letter to
San Luis Obispo Superior Court,
No. CV12835
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LISA LEAGE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
BECHTEL CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, a corporation,

15
16

Defendant.
___________________________

17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 13-00236 DDP (MANx)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND
[Dkt. No. 8]

Presently before the court is Plaintiff Lisa Leage’s Motion

18

for Remand to State Court.

19

submissions, the court adopts the following order.

20

Having considered the parties’

Plaintiff brought an action against Defendant Bechtel

21

Construction Company (“BCC”) on December 6, 2012, in the Superior

22

Court of the State of California.

23

discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination under the

24

California Fair Employment Housing Act and the California Labor

25

Code.

26

court.

In the Complaint, she alleged

On January 11, 2013, BCC timely removed the action to this

27

A defendant may remove to federal court “any civil action

28

brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United

1

States have original jurisdiction . . . .”

2

District courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions

3

where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of

4

$75,000, exclusive of interest and cost, and is between . . .

5

citizens of different states.”

6

statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction, and

7

federal jurisdiction must be rejected if any doubt exists as to the

8

propriety of removal.

9

Cir. 1992).

10
11

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

The removal

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th

A removing defendant bears the burden of establishing

that removal is proper.

Id.

“[I]n cases where a plaintiff’s state court complaint does not

12

specify a particular amount of damages, the removing defendant

13

bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the

14

evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds” the required

15

amount. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398 (9th Cir.

16

1996).

17

establishing that it is ‘more likely than not’ that the amount in

18

controversy exceeds that amount.”

19

In other words, Defendant must “provide evidence

Id.

Defendant presents evidence that it employed Plaintiff as a

20

laborer from January 9, 2012, until March 30, 2012.

21

(Schwartzmiller Decl. ¶ 2.)

22

hour, as well as $2.32 per hour for vacation and $1.28 for

23

supplemental dues.

24

benefits including health and welfare benefits and pension

25

contribution.

26

$45.78 per hour.

27
28

(Id.

(Id.)

¶ 3.)

She received a base pay of $28.39 per

Additionally, she received fringe

Her base pay plus benefits totaled

(Id.)

Defendant calculates that if Plaintiff had continued to work
for BCC for a full year at 40 hours per week, her overall
2

1

compensation package (taxable wages and non-taxable fringe

2

benefits) would have amounted to $95,222.40.

3

asserts that these economic damages alone exceed the amount in

4

controversy, and that Plaintiff is also seeking punitive damages

5

and attorneys fees which increase the amount further.1

6

finds that these damages are too speculative.

7

BCC for only three months before being terminated, and no evidence

8

has been presented that despite her short tenure and the nature of

9

the construction business, she would have remained in BCC’s employ

(Id. ¶ 4.)

Defendant

The court

Plaintiff worked for

10

for an extended period.

11

that Plaintiff would have earned a full year’s salary but for the

12

termination in March 2012.

13

regarding amount or likelihood of a punitive damage award.

14

The court sees no good reason to speculate

Nor has any evidence been presented

Because the court finds that the amount in controversy has not

15

been established by preponderance of the evidence, it declines to

16

address the issue of the diversity of parties.

17
18

The Motion is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21

Dated:February 27, 2013
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Defendant also argues that by refusing to stipulate that
Plaintiff seeking less than $75,000, Plaintiff’s attorneys conceded
the amount in controversy. The court rejects this argument. The
burden to establish the amount in controversy falls upon the
removing party.
3