Anna Pakhomova v. Costco Wholesale Corporation et al

Filing 24

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND [DKT. NO. 18] by Judge Hernan D. Vera Granting 18 MOTION to Remand Case to State Court: The Court finds that Defendant has not established the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. For the reasons discussed, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is granted. (see document for further details) MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (bm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Case No. 2:24-cv-05645-HDV-BFM
ANNA PAKHOMOVA,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16
17

JS-6

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND [DKT. NO. 18]

v.
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a
Washington Corporation; DOE 1 (STORE
MANAGER), and DOES 2 TO 50, inclusive,
Defendants.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1

1

I.

2

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Anna Pakhomova brings this action against Defendant Costco Wholesale

3

Corporation for an injury that occurred while she was walking in a store parking lot in Los Angeles,

4

California, in February 2022. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (“Motion”), which

5

argues that Defendant has not adequately established subject matter jurisdiction. [Dkt. No. 18].

6

The Court finds that, given the absence of any evidence on the nature or extent of the injuries

7

alleged, Defendant has not met its burden to establish the required amount in controversy. For that

8

reason, the Court concludes that there is no diversity jurisdiction and grants the Motion to Remand.

9

II.

10

RELEVANT BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that she was walking in the parking lot of Defendant’s premises at 2901 Los

11

Feliz Blvd., Los Angeles, CA on or around February 20, 2022, when she stepped on uneven

12

pavement. Complaint ¶ 4 [Dkt. No. 1-2]. This made her trip and fall, causing Plaintiff to endure

13

injury and pain. Id.

14

In a complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on November 9, 2023, Plaintiff asserts

15

general negligence and premises liability claims against Defendant. On July 3, 2024, Defendant

16

filed a Notice of Removal to this Court. (“Removal Notice”) [Dkt. No. 1]. Defendant contends that

17

complete diversity exists and that the Court should disregard the fictitious defendants for purposes of

18

determining diversity citizenship. Id. at 2–3. Defendant also avers that given Plaintiff’s claimed

19

damages, the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional requirement. Id. at 3.

20

Plaintiff filed her Motion to Remand on August 5, 2024, and Defendants opposed it

21

(“Opposition”). [Dkt. Nos. 18, 19, 21]. The Court heard oral argument on September 12, 2024, and

22

took the matter under submission.

23

III.

24

LEGAL STANDARD
Federal courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions between citizens of different states

25

where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Section 1332 requires

26

complete diversity, meaning that each plaintiff must be diverse from each defendant. Exxon Mobil

27

Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005) (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S.

28

267 (1806)). Any doubts about removal are resolved in favor of remand. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980

2

1

F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th

2

Cir. 1979)). “Th[is] ‘strong presumption’ against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant

3

always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Id. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c),

4

an improperly removed case must be remanded to state court.

5

IV.

DISCUSSION

6

A.

7

Defendant contends that diversity exists because it is a citizen of the Washington (where it

Diversity of Citizenship

8

has its principal place of business and is incorporated) and Plaintiff is a resident of California.

9

Removal Notice at 2–3. Plaintiff maintains that there is no diversity jurisdiction because the store

10

manager, DOE 1, was listed as a defendant before the case was removed and is likely a California

11

resident since he/she was an employee at the store where the fall occurred. Motion at 20–21.

12

The Ninth Circuit has plainly held that “[t]he citizenship of fictitious defendants is

13

disregarded for removal purposes and becomes relevant only if and when the plaintiff seeks leave to

14

substitute a named defendant.” Soliman v. Philip Morris Inc., 311 F.3d 966, 971 (9th Cir. 2002).

15

Given this principle, this Court must disregard DOE 1’s citizenship when assessing diversity.

16

Plaintiff relies heavily on Gallegos, where the district court considered the general manager’s

17

citizenship for jurisdictional purposes. Gallegos v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

18

96911, at *8 (C.D. Cal. June 2, 2020). Gallegos does not support Plaintiff’s position here. In

19

Gallegos, the defendant manager was specifically identified and was a named defendant. The same

20

is true of the other cases cited by Plaintiff—all involved specifically identified and/or named

21

defendants.1 Thus, disregarding the possible citizenship of this Doe defendant, and considering only

22

the citizenship of the parties—namely, that of Costco and Plaintiff—the Court concludes that the

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

See Motion at 27, 30 (citing Ramirez v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 2:22-cv-07985-DMG-(PVCx),
2023 WL 2388349, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2023); Dirkes v. Sam’s W., Inc., No. 2:22-cv-03466-JLS(MARx), 2022 WL 17098672, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2022); Alarcon v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
No. 5:22-cv-00692-FMO-(JCx), 2022 WL 1449128, at *2–3 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2022); Leroy W. v.
Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 2:20-cv-04265- JAK-(FFMx), 2020 WL 7023777, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Nov.
30, 2020); Harris v. Walmart, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-02540-SB-(PLAx), 2022 WL 2132588, at *3 (C.D.
Cal. June 13, 2022)).

3

1

diversity of citizenship requirement is met.

2

B.

3

The parties disagree as to whether Plaintiff’s Statement of Damages, which asks for damages

4

in excess of $1,000,000 and special damages in excess of $1,000,000, see [Dkt. No. 1-2, Ex. C], and

5

which was provided separate from the Complaint itself, suffices to meet the jurisdictional amount in

6

controversy. Motion at 18–19; Opposition at 7–8. If it is unclear or ambiguous from a state-court

7

complaint whether the requisite amount in controversy is met, “the removing defendant bears the

8

burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds

9

the jurisdictional amount.” Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007).

10

Amount in Controversy

In the jurisdiction section of the state complaint, Plaintiff checked the box, “Action is an

11

unlimited civil case (exceeds $25,000).” [Dkt. No. 1-2, Ex. A]. She alleges no other facts regarding

12

the amount in controversy. The Complaint does not detail Plaintiff’s injuries and only states that the

13

fall caused her to endure “severe injury and pain.” Id. Because it is ambiguous whether the amount

14

in controversy is met from the four corners of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant bears the burden of

15

establishing that the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds $75,000. See Guglielmino,

16

506 F.3d at 699.

17

California district courts have found that a statement of damages, alone, is insufficient to

18

meet the requisite standard. While a “statement of damages ‘is relevant evidence of the amount in

19

controversy if it appears to reflect a reasonable estimate of the plaintiff’s claim,’… [a] plaintiff’s

20

damage estimate will not establish the amount in controversy… if it appears to be only a bold

21

optimistic prediction.” Ortiz v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 19-CV-1293-JLS-BGS, 2019 WL

22

3183675, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 16, 2019) (quoting Schroeder v. PetSmart, Inc., No. 19-CV-1561-

23

FMO-AGRX, 2019 WL 1895573, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2019). Thus, “[e]ven in cases where a

24

plaintiff alleges more than $75,000.00 in its statement of damages, that allegation alone, without

25

support in either plaintiff’s complaint or defendant’s notice of removal, are[sic] not sufficient to

26

carry defendant’s burden to prove the required jurisdictional amount.” Id. (quoting Boutorabi v.

27

Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co., No. 17-CV-1026-DOC-DFM, 2017 WL 3037400, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 18,

28

2017)).

4

1

Here, neither Plaintiff’s Complaint nor her Statement of Damages provides any detail on how

2

Plaintiff arrived at her estimate of $2,000,000. That is plainly not enough to decide the question.

3

See Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding

4

that conclusory allegations as to the amount in controversy are insufficient); Schneider v. Ford

5

Motor Co., 441 F. Supp. 3d 909, 913–14 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (finding that the amount in controversy

6

did not exceed $75,000 because the complaint did not offer, and defendant failed to produce, any

7

facts on what damages were included in plaintiff’s claimed damages); Surber v. Reliance Nat.

8

Indem. Co., 110 F. Supp. 2d 1227, 1231 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (finding that the plaintiff’s statement of

9

damages was not supported by the record, and concluding that defendant failed to establish that the

10

amount in controversy requirement was satisfied).

11

Since the burden of proof falls on Defendant as the removing party, the Court must look at

12

what evidence of likely damages has been submitted in support of the removal (or in opposition to

13

the Motion). Here, Defendant has proffered nothing. Apart from relying on Plaintiff’s estimate,

14

Defendant has not submitted any declarations, documents, or other evidence to establish that it is

15

more likely than not that Plaintiff’s damages exceed $75,000. The Court simply cannot guess.

16

While Plaintiff described the injury as “severe and painful” in her statement of damages, that in itself

17

is not enough to assume damages greater than the jurisdictional minimum. And Plaintiff’s wholly

18

unsupported, multi-million-dollar request is nothing more than an “optimistic prediction” if not

19

outright puffery. In summary, Defendant has not met its burden and any doubts about the amount in

20

controversy (which this Court certainly has) are resolved in favor of remand. See Gaus, 980 F.2d at

21

566.

22

V.

23
24

CONCLUSION
The Court finds that Defendant has not established the requirements for diversity jurisdiction.

For the reasons discussed, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is granted.

25
26

Dated: September 26, 2024
Hernán
nán D. Vera
United States District Judge

27
28
5