Pauline Marquez v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC

Filing 31

ORDER REMANDING ACTION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha : The court REMANDS the action to the Los AngelesCounty Superior Court, Pomona, Case No. 23PSCV00986. All dates and deadlines in this court are VACATED. The clerk of the court shall close the action administratively. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (lc)

1

JS-6

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PAULINE MARQUEZ,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 2:23-cv-07846-FLA (SKx)
ORDER REMANDING ACTION FOR
LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION

v.
LOWE’S HOME CENTER, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

RULING
On April 4, 2023, Plaintiff Pauline Marquez (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action

20

against Defendant Lowe’s Home Center, LLC (“Defendant”) and DOES 1 through 50

21

in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Dkt. 1, Ex. A (“Compl.”). The Complaint

22

asserts state-law claims for general negligence and premises liability, alleging Plaintiff

23

sustained personal injuries while at Defendant’s retail store. Id.

24

On September 20, 2023, Defendant removed the action to this court based on

25

alleged diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. 1. In its Notice of Removal, Defendant alleges the

26

court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the amount in

27

controversy exceeds $75,000. Id. Defendant relies on Plaintiff’s Statement of

28

Damages served on August 22, 2023, seeking $43,937.00 in medical bills to date,
1

1

$40,000 in future medical expenses, and $200,000 in non-economic pain and suffering

2

damages. Id. at 6.1 On September 21, 2023, the court ordered the parties to show

3

cause why the action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

4

due to an insufficient amount in controversy. Dkt. 12. Only Defendant filed a

5

response. Dkt. 13 (“Def. Resp.”).

6

Having reviewed the Notice of Removal and Defendant’s response to this

7

court’s Order to Show Cause, and for the following reasons, the court finds Defendant

8

fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction and accordingly REMANDS this action to

9

the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

10

DISCUSSION

11

Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power

12

authorized by the Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of

13

Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. District courts are

14

presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the

15

record. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n. 3 (2006).

16

Additionally, federal courts have an obligation to examine jurisdiction sua sponte

17

before proceeding to the merits of a case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526

18

U.S. 574, 583 (1999).

19

Federal courts have jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law or

20

where each plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship and the

21

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C.

22

§§ 1331, 1332(a). Thus, a notice removing an action from state court to federal court

23

must include “a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the

24

jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574

25

U.S. 81, 89 (2014). Where “the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the

26
27
28

1

The court cites documents by the page numbers added by the court’s CM/ECF
system, rather than any page numbers that appear within the documents natively.
2

1

defendant’s allegation” concerning the amount in controversy, “both sides [shall]

2

submit proof,” and the court may then decide whether the defendant has proven the

3

amount in controversy “by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at 88–89. “Federal

4

jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first

5

instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). It is Defendant’s

6

burden as the removing party to justify this court’s exercise of jurisdiction. Id. at 567.

7

Here, the amount of damages Plaintiff seeks cannot be determined from the

8

Complaint, as it does not set forth a specific amount. See generally Compl.

9

Defendant, however, contends “it was reasonable and necessary for Defendant to

10

remove based on Plaintiff’s statement of damages.” Def. Resp. at 2. A statement of

11

damages “is relevant evidence of the amount in controversy if it appears to reflect a

12

reasonable estimate of the plaintiff’s claim.” Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837,

13

840 (9th Cir. 2002). “A plaintiff’s damage estimate will not establish the amount in

14

controversy, however, if it appears to be only a bold optimistic prediction.” Romsa v.

15

Ikea U.S. W., Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-05552-MMM (JEMx), 2014 WL 4273265, at *2

16

(C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).2

17

It is clear the $283,937 in damages set forth in the Statement of Damages is

18

simply a “bold optimistic prediction” and is not a reasonable estimate of Plaintiff’s

19

claims. See id. (“The leap from $4,597.77 in medical expenses incurred to

20

[defendant’s] assertion that [plaintiff’s son] has suffered damages in excess of $75,000

21

because he cries a lot and wakes up several times a night is difficult to credit.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Defendant also acknowledges that “recent decisions in this District have challenged
the sufficiency of a statement of damages, without more, to establish that the amount
in controversy actually exceeds $75,000.” Def. Resp. at 5; see also id. at 6 (noting
Defendant has “reviewed this Court’s own recent rulings concluding that a statement
of damages, without more, is insufficient to allow it to determine that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000”). Defendant further states that “it lacks evidence that
would tend to show that Plaintiff’s claims in her statement of damages are reasonable
estimates of her potential recovery in this matter[.]” Id. at 6.
3

1

[Defendant] cites no facts that indicate a damages award anywhere near $75,000 – let

2

alone $1,000,000 – is likely.”). Significantly, the Statement of Damages cites no facts

3

whatsoever to explain how Plaintiff determined the $283,937 amount. See Dkt. 1,

4

Ex. N; see also Romsa, 2014 WL 4273265, at *2 (remanding action where plaintiff’s

5

statement of damages did not explain how he arrived at the damages estimated);

6

Schroeder v. Petsmart, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-01561-FMO (AGRx), 2019 WL

7

1895573, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2019) (same); see also Owens v. Westwood Coll.

8

Inc., 2013 WL 4083624, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2013) (finding plaintiff’s

9

settlement demand letters could not be used to establish the amount in controversy

10

requirement because they “demand[ed] an arbitrary settlement figure, with no

11

showing of how [the] figure was calculated”).

12

Accordingly, because Plaintiff’s Statement of Damages is insufficient on its

13

face to show that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and neither party has

14

provided additional evidentiary support to establish the amount in controversy meets

15

the jurisdictional threshold, there is no basis for diversity jurisdiction. See Gaus, 980

16

F.2d at 566 (finding any doubt regarding the existence of subject matter jurisdiction

17

must be resolved in favor of remanding the action to state court).

18
19

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court REMANDS the action to the Los Angeles

20

County Superior Court, Case No. 23PSCV00986. All dates and deadlines in this court

21

are VACATED. The clerk of the court shall close the action administratively.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated: March 27, 2024

26
27
28

______________________________
FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA
United States District Judge
4