Brad Ponsford v. Skypatrol, LLC et al

Filing 20

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: granting 12 MOTION to Remand Case to State Court. Case Remanded to Riverside County Superior Court RIC1706168. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (twdb)

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

EDCV 17-00977 AG (KKx)

Title

BRAD PONSFORD v. SKYPATROL, LLC ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

August 21, 2017

ANDREW J. GUILFORD

Lisa Bredahl
Deputy Clerk
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Proceedings:

Date

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

[IN CHAMBERS] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
REMAND

In Ponsford v. Skypatrol, LLC et al., SACV 17-00119 AG (KKx), Plaintiff Brad Ponsford sued
Defendants Skypatrol LLC and Topp Group, Inc. for wrongful termination, retaliation, and
unfair competition in violation of state law. There, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to
remand because the parties were minimally diverse and Defendants had adequately shown
that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). But four days after
the Court issued its order, Plaintiff filed another lawsuit in the Riverside County Superior
Court. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1-2 at 1.) Although the two cases appear to be factually identical,
the new complaint only contains one claim for relief under the Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act (“PAGA”), see Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq. Defendants once again removed on
the asserted basis of diversity jurisdiction, and Plaintiff once again moves to remand.
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” and they possess “only that power
authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S.
375, 377 (1994). The Constitution provides, in Article III, § 2, that “[t]he judicial Power [of
the United States] shall extend . . . to all Cases . . . between Citizens of different States.” And
Congress, in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), has authorized district courts to exercise jurisdiction over
“all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000,
exclusive of interests and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States.” Principles of
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 4

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

EDCV 17-00977 AG (KKx)

Date

Title

August 21, 2017

BRAD PONSFORD v. SKYPATROL, LLC ET AL.

federalism and judicial economy require courts to “scrupulously confine their [removal]
jurisdiction to the precise limits which [Congress] has defined.” See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp.
v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 109 (1941). As this Court has often stated, “[n]othing is to be more
jealously guarded by a court than its jurisdiction.” See United States v. Ceja-Prado, 333 F.3d
1046, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).
With that background in mind, the Court must consider whether subject matter jurisdiction
exists in this case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999) (“Article III
generally requires a federal court to satisfy itself of its jurisdiction over the subject matter.”).
For starters, it’s apparent that both sides are “completely diverse.” See Exxon Mobil Corp. v.
Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005). Plaintiff is a citizen of California, while
Defendants are either citizens of Delaware, Florida, or New York. (Notice of Removal, Dkt.
No. 1 at 3–4.) The parties don’t dispute those basic jurisdictional facts. (Compare Mot. to
Remand, Dkt. No. 12 at 3, with Opp’n, Dkt. No. 14 at 2.)
Plaintiff’s primary argument, once again, is that Defendants have “failed to meet their burden
in showing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.” (Mot. to Remand, Dkt. No. 12
at 3.) A defendant seeking to remove a case to a federal court need only file a notice of
removal “containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1446(a). Ordinarily, “the defendant’s amount-in-controversy allegation should be accepted
when not contested by the plaintiff or questioned by the court.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating
Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 553 (2014). But if the plaintiff does contest that allegation,
then “removal . . . is proper on the basis of an amount in controversy asserted” by the
defendant “if the district court finds, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in
controversy exceeds” the jurisdictional threshold. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B) (emphasis
added). In such a cases, “both sides submit proof and the [district] court decides, by a
preponderance of the evidence, whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been
satisfied.” Dart Cherokee, 135 S. Ct. at 554 (emphasis added).
This Court shares Defendants’ serious concerns about the preservation of judicial economy
and the specter of improper forum shopping. (Opp’n, Dkt. No. 14 at 5–8.) Accordingly, all
parties are ORDERED to appear at the August 21, 2017 hearing in this matter prepared to
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 4

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

EDCV 17-00977 AG (KKx)

Date

Title

August 21, 2017

BRAD PONSFORD v. SKYPATROL, LLC ET AL.

discuss whether “plaintiff has attempted to manipulate the forum” and, if so, how the Court
should “take this behavior into account.” Cf. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. V. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 357
(1988) (discussing a federal court’s decision to remand, or exercise supplement jurisdiction
over remaining state law claims). The basic rule, however, is that “subject-matter jurisdiction
. . . can never be forfeited or waived.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006)
(internal quotation marks omitted). So, putting the parties’ various policy arguments aside,
this Court still has a duty to ensure that the mandatory requirements for subject matter
jurisdiction have been properly established.
Here, the Court isn’t persuaded that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Unlike the
original case, Plaintiff only seeks civil penalties, interest, and attorney fees under PAGA.
(Compl., Dkt. No. 1-2 at 6.) Many of the forms of relief in a typical labor and employment
case, like compensatory and punitive damages, are therefore irrelevant here. Indeed, as
Defendants appear to concede, the statutory damages available for these alleged violations of
PAGA are likely less than $800. (Opp’n, Dkt. No. 14 at 9–10.) Defendants instead argue that
the entire amount in controversy can be established by estimating the amount of attorney
fees through trial. (Id. at 10–12.) True, attorneys fees may be considered in calculating the
amount in controversy where the “underlying statute authorizes an award” of such fees. See
Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1156 (9th Cir. 1998). But Defendant hasn’t
provided sufficient evidence concerning the amount of attorneys fees that have accrued so
far. See Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377 (1994) (recognizing that “the burden of establishing”
subject matter jurisdiction “rests upon the party asserting [it]”). And, further, estimating the
amount of attorney fees through the date of trial strikes the Court as an arbitrary and
speculative task—one that’s, perhaps, inconsistent with the Court’s obligation to “jealously
guard” its jurisdiction. See Ceja-Prado, 333 F.3d at 1051.
Taking all this together, Defendants haven’t shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. For these reasons, the Court thus GRANTS the
motion to remand. (Dkt. No. 12.)
:
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 3 of 4

0

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

EDCV 17-00977 AG (KKx)

Date

Title

BRAD PONSFORD v. SKYPATROL, LLC ET AL.
Initials of
Preparer

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 4 of 4

August 21, 2017

lmb