Alfonso Martindale v. PeopleReady, Inc. et al

Filing 10

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT by Judge R. Gary Klausner. The Court finds that Defendant fails to prove that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 by a preponderance of the evidence. With $52,150 as a star ting point, no supporting evidence regarding emotional distress damages, and only speculation as to punitive damages, Defendants do not meet the minimum amount in controversy. In light of the foregoing, the action is hereby remanded to state court for all further proceedings. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (iv)

JS-6

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

CV18-01950-RGK (GJSx)

Title

ALFONSO MARTINDALE v. PEOPLEREADY, INC., et al

Present: The
Honorable

Date

March 13, 2018

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 March 14, 2017, Alfonso Martindale (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against PeopleReady, Inc.
(“Defendant”) alleging wrongful termination and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from
racial discrimination.
On March 8, 2018, after obtaining information through discovery, 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 his complaint, Plaintiff seeks damages for lost wages, physical and mental damages, general
damages, and punitive damages. In support of its removal, Defendant relies on Plaintiff’s discovery
responses in which Plaintiff states that the sum of his lost wages alone is over $52,150, and continues to
accrue at $1,000 per month. Defendant states that Plaintiff’s damages through trial for lost wages will be
$58,150, based on Plaintiff’s calculations. Defendant then relies on past jury verdicts to support its
argument that emotional distress and punitive damages will be substantially more than the $17,000
needed to meet the jurisdictional minimum.

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.

CV18-01950-RGK (GJSx)

Date

Title

March 13, 2018

ALFONSO MARTINDALE v. PEOPLEREADY, INC., et al

The Court finds that Defendant fails to prove that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 by
a preponderance of the evidence. With $52,150 as a starting point, no supporting evidence regarding
emotional distress damages, and only speculation as to punitive damages, Defendants do not meet the
minimum amount in controversy.
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