Lori Kovacic-Engelking v. Alaska Airlines, Inc. et al

Filing 17

(IN CHAMBERS) Order Remanding Action to State Court On by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Upon review of Defendant's Notice of Removal, the Court hereby remands the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Case remanded to Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case number BC660538. Refer to the Court's order for details. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (pso)

JS-6

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

CV17-04487-RGK (AGRx)

Title

Lori Kovacic-Engelking v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., et al

Present: The
Honorable

Date

July 26, 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 May 5, 2017, Lori Kovacic-Enhelking (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Alaska Airlines,
Inc. (“Defendant”) alleging claims of discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation, wrongful
termination, and other violations of the California Government Code §§ 12940, et. seq.
On June 16, 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).
In her complaint, Plaintiff seeks actual, consequential, and incidental damages for lost earnings
and benefits, general and special damages, punitive and exemplary damages, and reasonable attorney’s
fees. In support of its removal, Defendant sets forth Plaintiff’s most recent yearly salary of $50,301.40,
and reasons that by the time the case goes through trial, the amount of lost earnings alone, could exceed
$100,000. Defendant also states that in cases such as this, where the plaintiff has alleged emotional
distress damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees, other courts have found that the amount in
controversy more likely exceeds $75,000. However, Defendant primarily relies on speculation.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant has 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.

CV17-04487-RGK (AGRx)

Date

Title

July 26, 2017

Lori Kovacic-Engelking v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 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