Rebecca Marciano v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. et al

Filing 8

(IN CHAMBERS) Order Remanding Action to State Court by Judge R. Gary Klausner remanding case to Stanley Most Courthouse, LA Superior Court, Case number BC 646861 Case Terminated. Certified copies of docket sheet and Order to Remand sent to State Court. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (Attachments: # 1 Letter) (ah)

JS-6

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

CV17-01819-RGK (AJWx)

Title

REBECCA MARCIANO v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

March 22, 2017

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 January 12, 2017, Rebecca Marciano (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Chipotle Mexican
Grill, Inc. (“Defendant”) alleging claims for 1) negligent, 2) strict products liability, 3) breach of
warranty, and 4) merchantability. Plaintiff served the complaint on February 7, 2017.
On March 7, 2017, 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’s claims arise from allegations that she suffered injury and damages from food
poisoning when she purchased and consumed a burrito from one of Defendant’s restaurants. Defendant
argues that damages in other cases from allegations similar to Plaintiff’s have surpassed the $75,000
threshold requirement. Defendant further argues using damages awarded in other cases, along with
attorney’s fees, a conservative, good-faith estimate takes the amount in controversy above the $75,000
requirement.
The Court finds that Defendant’s calculation is based on pure speculation and conjecture.
Damages derived in other cases, alone, fail to provide adequate support for the amount in controversy of
CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

JS-6

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

CV17-01819-RGK (AJWx)

Date

Title

March 22, 2017

REBECCA MARCIANO v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.

this case. Therefore, 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