Duane Martell Fitzgerald v. Ford Motor Company, Inc.

Filing 11

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT by Judge R. Gary Klausner: [T]he action is hereby remanded to state court for all further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. remanding case to SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, Case number CIVDS 1706021 (Case Terminated. Made JS-6.) (cr)

JS-6

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

ED CV17-00941-RGK (KKx)

Title

DJUAN MARTELL FITZGERALD v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, INC.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

May 18, 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 March 28, 2017, Djuan Martell Fitzgerald, et al (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Ford
Motor Company, Inc. (“Defendant”) alleging claims for 1) strict liability - design defect, 2) strict
liability - failure to warn; (3) Breach of the Implied Warranty; (4) Negligence.
On May 15, 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 his Complaint, Plaintiff does not expressly allege the amount in controversy or that the
amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional requirement. In its Notice of Removal, Defendant states
only that Plaintiff seeks damages for past and future general and special damages arising from injuries to
Plaintiff’s head, neck, back, and chest, which cause him to become and remain comatose. Defendant
further points to Plaintiff’s allegation that physicians have declared him “brain dead.” While the alleged
injuries are indeed significant, Defendant fails to supply jurisdictional facts to meet its burden of
showing that the jurisdictional requirement has been met by a preponderance of the evidence.

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.

ED CV17-00941-RGK (KKx)

Date

May 18, 2017

Title

DJUAN MARTELL FITZGERALD v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, INC.
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