Elizabeth Dominguez v. Bed Bath and Beyond, Inc. et al

Filing 8

ORDER by Judge S. James Otero remanding case to Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. The Court accordingly REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. See Alb ingia Versicherungs A G v. Schenker Intern. Inc., 344 F.3d 931, 938 (9th Cir. 2003), amended by 350 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2003) ("[I]f it is discovered at any time in the litigation that there is no federal jurisdiction, a removed case must be remanded to the state court court rather than dismissed."). This matter shall close. JS-6. See minute order for further details. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (jy)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-08573 SJO (ASx)

Title

Elizabeth Dominguez v. Bed Bath and Beyond, Inc. et al

Present: The Honorable

Date

November 21, 2016

JAMES OTERO, Judge presiding

Victor Cruz

Not Present

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Not Present
Proceedings:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present

IN CHAMBERS :

This matter is before the Court on its own motion. On November 17, 2016, Defendants
Bed Bath and Beyond, Inc., HoMedics, Inc., and HoMedics USA, LLC (together,
"Defendants") filed a Notice of Removal, claiming this Court can properly exercise
diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiff Elizabeth Dominguez's ("Plaintiff") complaint, which
asserts products liability causes of action under California state law. (See Notice of
Removal, ECF No. A.) Plaintiff's Complaint, filed September 7, 2016 in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, seeks monetary relief for
Defendants' design, manufacture, and sale of an allegedly defective HoMedics Back
Massager. (Notice of Removal, Ex. A at 5.)
Defendants argue that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 because Plaintiff
served them with a "statement of damages" consisting of (1) approximately $14,000 in
medical damages; (2) $42,240 in lost earnings; and (3) $150,000 in special damages.
(Notice of Removal ¶ 4, Ex. H.) "Although plaintiff's 'statement of damages' is not part
of the complaint or the state court file, it does carry more weight than a typical settlement
demand or an informal correspondence between the parties." Surber v. Reliance Nat'l
Indem. Co., 110 F. Supp. 2d 1227, 1230 (N.D. Cal. 2000). "Pursuant to California Code
of Civil Procedure sections 425.10 and 425.11, a plaintiff in a personal injury or wrongful
death action may not include a specific damages prayer in her complaint, but, upon
request by the defendant, she must provide a detailed statement of damages within 15
days." Id. (citing Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 425.10, 425.11).
Here, Plaintiff's Complaint does not recite a specific dollar amount of monetary damages
sought, nor does it specify a range of damages. (See generally Notice of Removal, Ex.
A.) Indeed, her Complaint is completely devoid of substantive allegations regarding the
nature and extent of her injuries. In light of this absence of factual allegations, the Court
does not find Plaintiff's request for $150,000 in "general damages" to be conclusive.
Indeed, "while [P]laintiff's estimates . . . exceed the minimum for diversity jurisdiction,
the Court finds no support for them in either [P]laintiff's complaint or [Defendants']
Notice of Removal." Surber, 110 F. Supp. 2d at 1231. In this case, the Court "cannot
accept [P]laintiff's statement of damages as a conclusive indication of subject matter
jurisdiction." Id.; see also Garza v. Bettcher Indus., Inc., 752 F. Supp. 753, 763 (E.D.
Mich. 1990) (holding that defendant's bald recitation that "the amount in controversy
exceeds $50,000," without the defendant identifying any specific factual allegations or
provisions in the complaint which might support that proposition, should provoke sua
sponte remand).
Nor have Defendants proffered any evidence supporting the reasonableness of Plaintiff's
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-08573 SJO (ASx)

Title

Elizabeth Dominguez v. Bed Bath and Beyond, Inc. et al

Date

November 21, 2016

claimed entitlement to $150,000 in general damages as stated in her "statement of
damages." Surber, 110 F. Supp. 2d at 1232. "Nor does anything in the record indicate
that [P]laintiff's $[15]0,000 estimate is anything but a bold and optimistic projection." Id.
"In order to establish probable punitive damages, a party asserting federal diversity
jurisdiction may introduce evidence of jury verdicts in cases involving analogous facts."
Id. (citations omitted). Defendants have submitted no such evidence in this case.
Because Defendants have failed to meet their burden of persuasion, the Court rejects their
contention that the amount in controversy requirement set forth in 28 U.S.C. section 1332
has been satisfied. The Court accordingly REMANDS this action to the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. See Albingia Versicherungs A
G v. Schenker Intern. Inc., 344 F.3d 931, 938 (9th Cir. 2003), amended by 350 F.3d 916
(9th Cir. 2003) ("[I]f it is discovered at any time in the litigation that there is no federal
jurisdiction, a removed case must be remanded to the state court court rather than
dismissed.").
This matter shall close.

JS-6

Vpc

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2