Joana Barrios v. L Oreal USA Products, Inc. et al

Filing 35

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING Motion to Remand to Los Angeles Superior Court Court Pursuant to 28 USC 1446(b) 24 by Judge John F. Walter:The Court finds that Defendant has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in co ntroversy exceeds $75,000. As Defendant demonstrated in its Notice of Removal and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion, a conservative estimate of Plaintiff's lost wages alone is $71,720.00. Accordingly, the Court concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 USC 1332(a). denying 24 MOTION to Remand Case to State Court (jp)

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

CV 17-3837-JFW (GJSx)

Title:

Joana Barrios -v- L'Oreal USA Products, Inc., et al.

Date: July 12, 2017

PRESENT:
HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Shannon Reilly
Courtroom Deputy

None Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:
None
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND TO LOS
ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
§1446(b) [filed 6/12/17; Docket No. 24]

On June 12, 2017, Plaintiff Joana Barrios (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion to Remand to Los Angeles
Superior Court Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) (“Motion”). On June 26, 2017, Defendant L’Oreal
USA Products, Inc. (“Defendant”) filed its Opposition. On June 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Reply.
Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, the Court finds that
this matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument. The hearing calendared for July 17,
2017 is hereby vacated and the matter taken off calendar. After considering the moving, opposing,
and reply papers, and the arguments therein, the Court rules as follows:
I.

Factual and Procedural Background

On April 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court against Defendant,
alleging claims for: (1) discrimination in violation of California Government Code §§ 12940, et seq.; (2)
retaliation in violation of California Government Code §§ 12940, et seq.; (3) failure to prevent
discrimination and retaliation in violation of California Government Code § 12940(k); (4) failure to
provide reasonable accommodations in violation of California Government Code §§ 12940, et seq.;
(5) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of California Government Code §§
12940, et seq.; (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (7) declaratory judgment.
On May 22, 2017, Defendant filed Notice of Removal, alleging this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, diversity jurisdiction. In her Motion, Plaintiff argues that this
case should be remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court because diversity jurisdiction does not exist
because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000.
II.

Legal Standard
A motion to remand is the proper procedure for challenging removal. See N. Cal. Dist. Council

Page 1 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr

of Laborers v. Pittsburg-Des Moines Steel Co., 69 F.3d 1034, 1038 (9th Cir.1995). The removal
statute is strictly construed, and any doubt about the right of removal is resolved in favor of remand.
See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1992); see also Prize Frize, Inc. v. Matrix, Inc.,
167 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir.1999). Consequently, if a plaintiff challenges the defendant’s removal of
a case, the defendant bears the burden of establishing the propriety of the removal. See Gaus, 980
F.2d at 566; see also Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir.1996) (citations and quotations
omitted) (“Because of the Congressional purpose to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts on
removal, the statute is strictly construed, and federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt
as to the right of removal in the first instance.”).
III.

Discussion

“A civil action in state court may be removed to federal district court if the district court has
‘original jurisdiction’ over the matter.” Lowdermilk v. United States Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994,
997 (9th Cir. 2007). Diversity jurisdiction founded under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) requires that (1) all
plaintiffs be of different citizenship than all defendants, and (2) the amount in controversy exceed
$75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
“[W]hen a defendant seeks federal-court adjudication, the defendant’s amount-in-controversy
allegation should be accepted when not contested by the plaintiff or questioned by the court.” Dart
Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 553 (2014). However, if the plaintiff
contests the defendant’s allegation, the defendant must establish, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See id. at 553-54; 28 U.S.C. §
1446(c)(2)(B).
In light of the relief requested, including lost wages, damages for emotional distress, attorneys’
fees, and punitive damages, the Court finds that Defendant has established, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. As Defendant demonstrated in its
Notice of Removal and Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion, a conservative estimate of Plaintiff’s lost
wages alone is $71,720.00. In addition, Defendant demonstrated that the emotional distress
damages in this case “are potentially substantial.” Richmand v. Allstate Ins. Co., 897 F.Supp. 447,
450 (S.D. Cal. 1995); Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2005) (“In determining
the amount in controversy, the district court properly considered . . . emotional distress awards in
similar age discrimination cases”). Accordingly, the Court concludes that it has subject matter
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
IV.

Conclusion
For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr