Maria Garcia v. Reebok International Ltd et al

Filing 6

MINUTE: (IN CHAMBERS) Order to Remand: Accordingly, Reebok has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiff's combined value of damages exceeds $75,000. Thus, the Court finds that removal is improperand REMANDS th is action to state court IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge R. Gary Klausner (cc Copy of Minute Order, docket sheet and Letter of Remand sent to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case number BC499824) (Case Terminated. Made JS-6) (Attachments: # 1 Letter of Remand-CV103) (ir)

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV-13-01641-RGK (PJWx)

Title

Maria Garcia v. Reebok International, Ltd. et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

April 5, 2013

R. GARY KLAUSNER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Sharon L. Williams (Not Present)

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) Order to Remand

On January 24, 2013, Maria Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in Los Angeles County
Superior Court against Reebok International, Ltd. (“Reebok”) and J.C. Penney arising out of an injury
Plaintiff sustained after wearing Reebok Simply Tone shoes. Plaintiff asserts in her Complaint that
Reebok defectively designed, manufactured, and assembled these shoes and that J.C. Penney sold the
shoes at retail or wholesale to customers. Plaintiff alleges claims for: (1) strict products liability and (2)
negligence against both Defendants.
On March 7, 2013, Defendant Reebok removed the action to this Court based on diversity
jurisdiction. Reebok did not join J.C. Penney because J.C. Penney had not yet been served Plaintiff’s
Summons and Complaint. (Reebok’s Notice of Removal ¶ 8.) For the reasons stated below, the Court
finds that diversity jurisdiction does not exist because Reebok cannot prove a sufficient amount in
controversy. Thus, this action is REMANDED.
Diversity jurisdiction exists where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the action is
between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “In measuring the amount in controversy, a court
must assume that the allegations of the complaint are true and that a jury will return a verdict for the
plaintiff on all claims made in the complaint.” Roth v. Comerica Bank, 799 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 1117
(C.D. Cal. 2010) (quoting Kenneth Rothschild Trust v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 199 F. Supp. 2d
993, 1001 (C.D. Cal. 2002). A court may also consider supplemental evidence submitted by the
removing defendant that was not originally included in the removal notice. Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281
F.3d 837, 840 n.1 (9th Cir. 2002). The defendant bears the burden of proof. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004). Where the complaint is either unclear or ambiguous as to the
amount of damages, defendant need only prove “by a preponderance of the evidence” that the amount in
controversy has been met. Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007).

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2

Here, Reebok has not met its burden to establish the threshold amount in controversy. Reebok
contends that the amount in controversy had been met, and lists the types of damages Plaintiff alleged in
the Complaint as a result of her injuries. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks general damages as well as special
damages for incurred and future medical and incidental expenses, loss of earnings, loss of future
earnings, and punitive damages. However, Reebok fails to assign any monetary estimates to Plaintiff’s
requested relief. Therefore, the Court cannot ascertain whether the amount in controversy was met.
In its defense, Reebok asserts that it made repeated attempts to contact Plaintiff’s counsel to
discuss the amount of alleged damages, but has received no response. However, this fact alone does not
relieve Reebok from its burden of proving the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the
evidence.
Accordingly, Reebok has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that
Plaintiff’s combined value of damages exceeds $75,000. Thus, the Court finds that removal is improper
and REMANDS this action to state court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 2