Adam Mehlman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. et al

Filing 24

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE: MOTION TO REMAND 12 by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Plaintiff's motion to remand is denied. (vdr)

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

CV 17-1234 FMO (KSx)

Title

Adam Mehlman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

April 5, 2017

Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge

Vanessa Figueroa

None

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorney Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney Present for Defendant(s):

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order Re: Motion to Remand

Having reviewed and considered all the briefing filed with respect to plaintiff’s Motion to
Remand [] (Dkt. 12, “Motion”), the court finds that oral argument is not necessary to resolve the
Motion, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15; Willis v. Pac. Mar. Ass’n, 244 F.3d 675, 684 n.
2 (9th Cir. 2001), and concludes as follows.
BACKGROUND
On January 13, 2017, plaintiff Adam Mehlman (“Mehlman” or “plaintiff”) filed a Complaint
in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta” or “defendant”) and
Does 1 through 100 (collectively, “defendants”) asserting a single claim of negligence. (See Dkt.
1-1, Complaint at ¶¶ 1-3 & 26-32). Specifically, plaintiff alleges that while in the air during an
international flight from Buenos Aires, Argentina to Atlanta, Georgia, a Delta flight attendant
“knocked an entire pot of scalding coffee into Plaintiff’s lap[,]” (see id. at ¶¶ 6-7), resulting in first
and second degree burns, (see id. at ¶ 8), which Delta employees failed to adequately treat during
the remainder of the flight. (See id. at ¶¶ 9-21).
On February 15, 2017, Delta timely removed the action on the basis of federal question
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. (See Dkt. 1, Notice of Removal (“NOR”) at
¶¶ 1-2). On February 24, 2017, Delta amended the notice of removal on the additional basis of
diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441.1 (See Dkt. 13, Amended Notice of
Removal (“ANOR”) at ¶ 3). Specifically, Delta contends that federal question jurisdiction exists
because plaintiff’s negligence claim is completely preempted by the Convention for the Unification

1

Delta was served with the summons and Complaint on February 2, 2017. (See Dkt. 1-2,
Proof of Service); 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(B) (“[D]efendant shall have 30 days after receipt by or
service on that defendant of the initial pleading or summons . . . to file the notice of removal.”);
ARCO Envtl. Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Quality of Montana, 213 F.3d 1108,
1117 (9th Cir. 2000) (“The Notice of Removal cannot be amended to add a separate basis for
removal jurisdiction after the thirty day period.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 4

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

CV 17-1234 FMO (KSx)

Date

Title

Adam Mehlman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., et al.

April 5, 2017

of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, May 28, 1999 (“Montreal Convention”). (See
id. at ¶ 1). Delta alternatively contends that diversity jurisdiction exists because plaintiff is a citizen
of California, Delta is a citizen of Delaware and Georgia, and plaintiff claims $1 million in damages.
(See id. at ¶¶ 5-8).
LEGAL STANDARD
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized
by Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114
S.Ct. 1673, 1675 (1994). The courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears
affirmatively from the record. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n. 3, 126
S.Ct. 1854, 1861 (2006). Federal courts have a duty to examine jurisdiction sua sponte before
proceeding to the merits of a case, see Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583, 119
S.Ct. 1563, 1569 (1999), “even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H
Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 1244 (2006).
“The right of removal is entirely a creature of statute and a suit commenced in a state court
must remain there until cause is shown for its transfer under some act of Congress.” Syngenta
Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32, 123 S.Ct. 366, 369 (2002) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Where Congress has acted to create a right of removal, those statutes, unless
otherwise stated, are strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. See id. Unless otherwise
expressly provided by Congress, “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district
courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the
defendants, to the district court[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see Dennis v. Hart, 724 F.3d 1249, 1252
(9th Cir. 2013) (same). A removing defendant bears the burden of establishing that removal is
proper. See Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006) (per
curiam) (noting the “longstanding, near-canonical rule that the burden on removal rests with the
removing defendant”); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (“The strong
presumption against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of
establishing that removal is proper.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, if there is any
doubt regarding the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, the court must resolve those doubts
in favor of remanding the action to state court. See Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 (“Federal jurisdiction
must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”).
DISCUSSION
Based on the court’s review of the ANOR, the state court Complaint, and the briefing on
the Motion, the court finds that defendant has met its burden to establish that removal was proper
in this case. Specifically, the court is persuaded that plaintiff could have originally brought this

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 4

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

CV 17-1234 FMO (KSx)

Title

Date

Adam Mehlman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., et al.

April 5, 2017

action in federal court by competently alleging facts supplying diversity jurisdiction.2 See 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a);3 Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 2429 (1987)
(“Only state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to
federal court by the defendant.”) (footnote omitted).
Here, plaintiff “is a resident in the County of Los Angeles, California.” (Dkt. 1-1, Complaint
at ¶ 1). Defendant is a Delaware corporation that has its corporate headquarters in Atlanta,
Georgia. (See Dkt. 13, ANOR at ¶ 8 & Exh. D); Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 746, 760 (2014)
(“With respect to a corporation, the place of incorporation and principal place of business are
paradigm bases for general jurisdiction.”) (internal quotation and alteration marks omitted).
With respect to the amount in controversy, Delta has met its burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy meets the $75,000 jurisdictional
threshold. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004); Matheson v.
Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (“Where it is 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. Where doubt regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be
remanded to state court.”) (footnotes omitted). Here, the amount of damages plaintiff seeks
cannot be determined from the Complaint, as the Complaint does not set forth a specific amount.
(See Dkt. 1-1, Complaint at ECF 11) (Prayer for Relief). But during the meet and confer in
connection with this Motion, plaintiff advised Delta that if it stipulated to remand the action to state
court, plaintiff would “stipulate to damages no more than $ 1 million.”4 (Dkt. 18-1, Declaration of
Todd C. Worthe [], Exh. B at ECF 130). Plaintiff’s offer to put a ceiling on his damages in an
amount that far exceeds the jurisdictional minimum is sufficient to satisfy defendant’s burden of
establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy meets the
jurisdictional threshold.

2

Because the court finds that diversity jurisdiction exists, the court need not consider the
parties’ arguments regarding federal question jurisdiction. (See Dkt. 12, Motion at 4-9; Dkt. 19,
Delta’s Amended Opposition to Motion to Remand at 7-15).
3

In relevant part, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) provides that “district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States[.]”
4

Plaintiff contends that the $1 million demand is “presented out of context,” and was made
as “frolic and banter” in the midst of settlement discussions. (See Dkt. 20, Reply to Defendant’s
Opposition to Remand Matter [] at 4). The court, however, has a difficult time understanding how
settlement discussions are an occasion for “frolic and banter.”
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 4

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

CV 17-1234 FMO (KSx)

Date

Title

Adam Mehlman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., et al.

April 5, 2017

CONCLUSION
This Order is not intended for publication. Nor is it intended to be included in or
submitted to any online service such as Westlaw or Lexis.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Document
No. 12) is denied.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

vdr

Page 4 of 4