Paulette T. Griffith v. Victorias Secret Stores, LLC

Filing 11

ORDER Remanding Action to State Court by Judge R. Gary Klausner. The action is hereby remanded to state court for all further proceedings. Made JS-6 (SEE CIVIL MINUTES FOR SPECIFICS) (bp)

JS-6

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

CV16-07566-RGK (JCx)

Title

PAULETTE T. GRIFFITH v. VICTORIA’S SECRET STORES, LLC

Present: The
Honorable

Date

October 14, 2016

R. GARY KLAUSNER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Sharon L. Williams

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) Order Remanding Action to State Court

On September 12, 2016, Paulette Griffith (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Victoria’s
Secret Stores, LLC. (“Defendant”) alleging claims for 1) disability discrimination; (2) unlawful
denial of reasonable accommodation of a disability; (3) failure to engage in timely, good faith,
interactive process; and (4) failure to prevent discrimination.
On October 12, 2016, Defendant removed the action to this Court alleging jurisdiction on
the grounds of diversity of citizenship. Upon review of Defendant’s Notice of Removal, the
Court hereby remands the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, district courts shall have original jurisdiction over any civil
action in which the parties are citizens of different states and the action involves an amount in
controversy that exceeds $75,000. After a plaintiff files a case in state court, the defendant
attempting to remove the case to federal court bears the burden of proving the amount in
controversy requirement has been met. Lowdermilk v. United States Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d
994, 998 (9th Cir. 2007). If the complaint does not allege that the amount in controversy has
been met, the removing defendant must supply this jurisdictional fact in the Notice of Removal
by a preponderance of the evidence. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566-567 (9th Cir. 1992).
Plaintiff has alleges in her complaint that the amount in controversy is over $25,000. In
its Notice of Removal, Defendant estimates that by the time of trial, Plaintiff’s lost pay damages
will equal $5,678.40. Defendant then argues that the addition of Plaintiff’s non-economic and
special damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees clearly raises the amount in controversy
to an amount that exceeds $75,000. However, Defendant’s arguments relating to these other

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

damages and fees are based speculation and amounts decided in other cases based on different
facts. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to satisfy its burden that the amount
in controversy meets the jurisdictional requirement.
In light of the foregoing, the action is hereby remanded to state court for all further
proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2