Elizabeth Alcala v. Electronic Imaging Services, Inc. et al

Filing 9

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson: As the party seeking to invoke this Court's jurisdiction, Defendant bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. At this point, Defendant has failed to meet its burden to dem onstrate the amount in controversy necessary to establish the Court's diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court remands this action to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC561531. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6 ) Court Reporter: Not Reported. (Attachments: # 1 CV-103 Remand Transmittal Letter) (gk)

JS-6

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

CV 14-9699 PA (JPRx)

Title

Elizabeth Alcala v. Electronic Imaging Servs., Inc., et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

January 8, 2015

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Julieta Lozano

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendant:

None

None

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER

Before the Court is a Notice of Removal filed by defendant Electronic Imaging Services, Inc.
d/b/a Vestcom Retail Solutions (“Defendant”) on December 18, 2014. (Docket No. 1.) Defendant
asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over the action brought against it by plaintiff Elizabeth Alcala
(“Plaintiff”) based on the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over
matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,
511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). A suit filed in state court may be
removed to federal court if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28
U.S.C. § 1441(a). A removed action must be remanded to state court if the federal court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party
seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Prize Frize,
Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.) Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 1999). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if
there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564,
566 (9th Cir. 1992).
In attempting to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, Defendant must prove that there is
complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. When an action has been removed and the amount in controversy is in
doubt, there is a “strong presumption” that the plaintiff has not claimed an amount sufficient to confer
jurisdiction. Gaus, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab
Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288–90, 58 S. Ct. 586, 590–91, 82 L. Ed. 845 (1938)). “When not facially evident
from the complaint that more than $75,000 is in controversy, the removing party must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold.”
Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). “Conclusory
allegations as to the amount in controversy are insufficient.” Id. at 1090-91. “Under this burden, the
defendant must provide evidence establishing that it is ‘more likely than not’ that the amount in
controversy exceeds [$75,000].” Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir.
1996).
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

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

CV 14-9699 PA (JPRx)

Date

Title

January 8, 2015

Elizabeth Alcala v. Electronic Imaging Servs., Inc., et al.

Plaintiff’s Complaint includes claims for (1) wrongful termination against public policy in
violation of Cal. Const. Art. I § 8, Labor Code § 132(a), and Gov. Code § 12940 et seq.; (2) failure to
engage in the interactive process in violation of Cal. Gov. Code § 12940 et seq.; (3) failure to provide
reasonable accommodation in violation of Cal. Gov. Code § 12940 et seq.; and (4) sexual orientation
discrimination in violation of Cal. Gov. Code § 12940 et seq. Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of (1)
compensatory damages, (2) special damages, (3) general damages, (4) punitive and exemplary damages,
(5) prejudgment interest, and (6) attorneys’ fees and costs. Although Plaintiff filed a Civil Case Cover
Sheet indicating that she seeks more than $25,000, the Complaint is otherwise silent as to the amount of
damages Plaintiff seeks. It is not facially evident from the Complaint that more than $75,000 is in
controversy. Therefore, it is incumbent on Defendant to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence,
facts demonstrating that the amount in controversy is satisfied. Sanchez, 102 F.3d at 404.
Plaintiff’s lost income falls far short of the $75,000 requirement. Defendant notes that Plaintiff
earned taxable income of $21,937.87 for the 2013 tax year. Plaintiff’s employment was terminated on
or about December 4, 2013. The Court has no information regarding whether or not Plaintiff has found
another job in the interim.
Defendant argues that at least a portion of the balance needed to reach $75,000 is supplied by
potential general and punitive damages. Defendant notes that “jury verdicts in wrongful termination
cases in California demonstrate that such claims alone bring the amount in controversy to well over the
$75,000 jurisdictional threshold.” Although Defendant is correct that “evidence of jury verdicts in cases
involving analogous facts” may be considered to determine the potential value of a claim, Defendant
makes no effort to analogize the facts of the instant case to those in the cases it cites. In Brown v. LNP
Engineering Plastics, Inc., No. 760384, 1997 WL 828516 (Cal. Super. Ct. June 30, 1997), it was alleged
that the defendant employer had a “fitness for duty” rule requiring all employees to be able to perform
all job functions before returning to work—a per se violation of California law that is not alleged here.
In Ismen v. Beverly Hosp., 36 Trials Digest 11th 5, 2008 WL 4056258 (Cal. Super. Aug. 13, 2008), the
plaintiff prevailed not only on claims for disability discrimination and failure to provide reasonable
accommodation, but also on a retaliation claim.
Finally, with respect to attorneys’ fees, Defendant argues that the Court should consider the
amount that can be expected to accrue “for the entirety of the litigation, not merely those already
incurred by the time of removal.” Although there is authority supporting this proposition, the Court
notes a split of authority within the Ninth Circuit. See Reames v. AB Car Rental Servs., 899 F. Supp. 2d
1012, 1020 (D. Or. 2012) (“It appears that a nascent consensus may be emerging among the district
courts of the Ninth Circuit that the split between the Conrad/Faulkner and the Simmons/Brady lines of
cases may best be resolved by adoption of the Conrad/Faulkner reasoning that attorney fees anticipated
but unaccrued at the time of removal are not properly in controversy for jurisdictional purposes.”)
However, the Court need not enter this debate because Defendant has presented no evidence regarding
attorneys’ fees, either accrued or anticipated.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

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

CV 14-9699 PA (JPRx)

Date

Title

January 8, 2015

Elizabeth Alcala v. Electronic Imaging Servs., Inc., et al.

As the party seeking to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction, Defendant bears the burden of proving
that jurisdiction exists. Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). At this point, Defendant
has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate the amount in controversy necessary to establish the Court’s
diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court remands this action to Los Angeles County Superior
Court, Case No. BC561531. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 3