Ruth Gamboa v. Access General Insurance Agency of California, LLC et al

Filing 11

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) Order Remanding Action to State Court by Judge R. Gary Klausner. In light of the foregoing, the action is hereby remanded to state court for all further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Case remanded to Superior Court of California Los Angeles County, Case number BC651326 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (lom)

JS-6

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

CV17-02546-RGK (JCx)

Title

RUTH GAMBOA v. ACCESS GENERAL INSURANCE AGENCY OF
CALIFORNIA, LLC, et al

Present: The
Honorable

Date

April 5, 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 February 22, 2017, Ruth Gamboa (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Access General
Insurance Agency of California, LLC, et al (“Defendants”) alleging claims of discrimination, retaliation,
and other violations of the California Government Code §§ 12940, et. seq.
On April 3, 2017, Defendants removed the action to this Court alleging jurisdiction on the
grounds of diversity of citizenship. Upon review of Defendants’ 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).
In her complaint, Plaintiff seeks general damages for lost wages, special damages for lost future
earnings, punitive and exemplary damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees. In support of their removal
of the action, Defendants reason that in cases alleging discrimination and wrongful termination, each of
emotional distress damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees, by themselves, often exceed
$75,000. However, Defendants rely only on speculation. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants
have failed to satisfy its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in
controversy meets the jurisdictional requirement.

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.

CV17-02546-RGK (JCx)

Date

April 5, 2017

Title

RUTH GAMBOA v. ACCESS GENERAL INSURANCE AGENCY OF
CALIFORNIA, LLC, et al
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