Kathryn Garcia v. Target Corporation et al

Filing 7

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT by Judge Dolly M. Gee: A district court shall have jurisdiction over a civil action where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is complete diversity of citizenship bet ween the parties. Target submits a copy of the demand letter that Garcia's counsel sent to Target prior to filing suit. Ex. C to Notice of Removal ("Demand Letter") [Doc. No. 1-3]. The Demand Letter indicates that Garcia's interim medical bills totaled $59,924.48. There is no amount provided for either the loss of past earnings or loss of future earnings categories, nor does the Letter provide any explanation of Garcia's earnings or earning capacity prior to the inc ident that gave rise to this suit. The Demand Letter also states that Garcia would settle the action for $100,000. The Demand Letter does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that at least $75,000 is at issue in this case. Accor dingly, Target has failed to carry its burden of establishing this Court's federal subject matter jurisdiction over the action. This case is therefore REMANDED to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case Number BC668601. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6 ) Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk)

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

Date

CV 17-8093 DMG (PLAx)

Title Kathryn Garcia v. Target Corp.
Present: The Honorable

JS-6 / REMAND

November 8, 2017
Page

1 of 2

DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

KANE TIEN
Deputy Clerk

NOT REPORTED
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)
None Present

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT

On July 14, 2017, Plaintiff Kathryn Garcia filed this personal injury suit in Los Angeles
County Superior Court against Target Corporation (“Target”), alleging a slip and fall that
occurred at one of Target’s California premises caused her harm. [Doc. # 1-1.] Target accepted
service on October 11, 2017 and filed its Answer on November 1, 2017. Werbin Decl. at ¶ 3
[Doc. # 1]; [Doc. # 1-2 (Answer)]. On November 6, 2017, Target removed the action to this
Court based on diversity jurisdiction. [Doc. # 1 (“Notice of Removal”).]
A district court shall have jurisdiction over a civil action where the matter in controversy
exceeds $75,000 and there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a)(1). “The burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction falls on the party
invoking removal.” Marin v. Gen. Hosp. v. Modesto & Empire Traction Co., 581 F.3d 941, 944
(9th Cir. 2009). Garcia is a California citizen and Target is a Minnesota citizen, which satisfies
the diversity of citizenship requirement.
The “amount in controversy is determined from the face of the pleadings,” and where the
state court complaint does not allege the amount of damages sought, as here, “the removing
defendant bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount
in controversy exceeds [the statutory minimum].” Crum v. Circus Circus Enterps., 231 F.3d
1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000); Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir.
1996) (alteration in original); accord Ohanian v. Victoria Fire & Cas. Co., No. CV 11-05602
MMM (RZx), 2011 WL 3319884, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2011). To do so, the defendant
should present “summary-judgment-type evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the
time of removal.” Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997)
(quoting Allen v. R&H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335–36 (5th Cir. 1995)).
“A speculative argument regarding the potential value of the award is insufficient.”
Conrad Assocs. V. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 994 F. Supp. 1196, 1198 (N.D. Cal. 1998); see
also Ohanian, 2011 WL 3319884, at *3 (defendant’s estimation that action satisfied amount in
CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk KT

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

CV 17-8093 DMG (PLAx)

Title Kathryn Garcia v. Target Corp.

JS-6 / REMAND

Date

November 8, 2017
Page

2 of 2

controversy requirement was too conclusory and speculative to satisfy $75,000 threshold, where
plaintiff alleged lost property value in connection with a $60,000 property and sought special and
punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and emotional distress damages (citing Miller v. Lifestyles
Senior Housing Managers, No. CIV S 05887LKKDAD, 2005 WL 1397401, at *1 (E.D. Cal.
June 13, 2005) (defendant’s estimation of amount in controversy where plaintiff earned $65,000
yearly salary and expected a bonus of $12,000 was speculation “at best”))).
Here, Target submits a copy of the demand letter that Garcia’s counsel sent to Target
prior to filing suit. Ex. C to Notice of Removal (“Demand Letter”) [Doc. # 1-3]. The Demand
Letter indicates that Garcia’s interim medical bills totaled $59,924.48. Id. at 3. There is no
amount provided for either the loss of past earnings or loss of future earnings categories, nor
does the Letter provide any explanation of Garcia’s earnings or earning capacity prior to the
incident that gave rise to this suit. See id. at 4. The Demand Letter also states that Garcia would
settle the action for $100,000. Id.
The Demand Letter does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that at least
$75,000 is at issue in this case. Target presents the Court with no other evidence of the amount
in controversy. Accordingly, Target has failed to carry its burden of establishing this Court’s
federal subject matter jurisdiction over the action.
This case is therefore REMANDED to the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk KT