Jessica Bell v. Union Pacific Railroad Company et al

Filing 12

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge David O. Carter: REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT SUA SPONTE. Remanding case to Superior Court of California, County of Orange; West Justice Center, Case number 30-2022-01231098-CU-WT-WJC. The Court VACATES the Scheduling Conference scheduled for 6/6/22. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. (twdb)

JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 22-00263-DOC-DFM

Date: May 10, 2022

Title: JESSICA BELL V. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY ET AL.

PRESENT:
THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE
Dajanae Carrigan for Karlen Dubon
Courtroom Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
PLAINTIFF:
None Present

Not Present
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
DEFENDANT:
None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
STATE COURT SUA SPONTE
On the Court’s own motion, the Court hereby REMANDS this case to the Superior
Court of California, County of Orange, and VACATES the Scheduling Conference
scheduled for June 6, 2022.
I.

Background

The following facts are drawn from Plaintiff Jessica Bell’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint
(“Compl.”) (Dkt. 1-1). This action concerns Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant
Union Pacific Railroad Company (“Defendant”). Compl. ¶ 3. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant discriminated against her in their employment decisions on the basis of her
gender and pregnancy. Id. ¶ 27. Plaintiff also alleges she was forced to resign from her
position due to the conditions Defendant subjected her to at the office. Id. ¶¶ 62-63.
Plaintiff originally filed suit in the Orange County Superior Court, on January 18,
2022. See generally Compl. On February 18, Defendant removed the action to this Court,
asserting diversity jurisdiction. Notice of Removal (Dkt. 1).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 22-00263-DOC-DFM

II.

Date: May 10, 2022
Page 2

Legal Standard

“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Removal of a case
from state court to federal court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441, which provides in
relevant part that “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of
the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed . . . to the district court of
the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is
pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441. This statute “is strictly construed against removal
jurisdiction,” and the party seeking removal “bears the burden of establishing federal
jurisdiction.” Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988)
(emphasis added) (citations omitted).
Federal diversity jurisdiction requires that the parties be citizens of different states
and that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). For diversity
jurisdiction purposes, a corporation is “deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign
state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its
principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). The presence of any single plaintiff
from the same state as any single defendant destroys “complete diversity” and strips the
federal courts of original jurisdiction over the matter. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah
Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005).
Generally, a removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that the amount in controversy satisfies the jurisdictional threshold. Guglielmino v.
McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2008). If the complaint affirmatively
alleges an amount in controversy greater than $75,000, the jurisdictional requirement is
“presumptively satisfied.” Id. A plaintiff who then tries to defeat removal must prove to a
“legal certainty” that a recovery of more than $75,000 is impossible. St. Paul Mercury
Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288-89 (1938); Crum v. Circus Enters., 231
F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000). This framework applies equally to situations where the
complaint leaves the amount in controversy unclear or ambiguous. See Gaus v. Miles,
Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992); Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d
398, 403-04 (9th Cir. 1996).
A removing defendant “may not meet [its] burden by simply reciting some
‘magical incantation’ to the effect that ‘the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of
[$75,000],’ but instead, must set forth in the removal petition the underlying facts
supporting its assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds [$75,000].” Richmond v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 22-00263-DOC-DFM

Date: May 10, 2022
Page 3

Allstate Ins. Co., 897 F. Supp. 447, 450 (S.D. Cal. 1995) (quoting Gaus, 980 F.2d at
567). If the plaintiff has not clearly or unambiguously alleged $75,000 in its complaint or
has affirmatively alleged an amount less than $75,000 in its complaint, the burden lies
with the defendant to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional
minimum is satisfied. Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka,
599 F.3d 1102, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 2010); Guglielmino, 506 F.3d at 699.
While the defendant must “set forth the underlying facts supporting its assertion
that the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory minimum,” the standard is not so
taxing so as to require the defendant to “research, state, and prove the plaintiff’s claims
for damages.” Coleman v. Estes Express Lines, Inc., 730 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 1148 (C.D.
Cal. 2010) (emphases added). In short, the defendant must show that it is “more likely
than not” that the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory minimum. Id. Summary
judgment-type evidence may be used to substantiate this showing. Matheson v.
Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090–91 (9th Cir. 2003); Singer v. State
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997). For example, defendants
may make mathematical calculations using reasonable averages of hourly, monthly, and
annual incomes of comparable employees when assessing the amount in controversy in a
wrongful termination suit. Coleman, 730 F. Supp. 2d. at 1148–49.
If the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, any action it takes is ultra vires and
void. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 534 (2005); Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better
Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94, 101–02 (1998). The lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be
raised at any time by either the parties or the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). If subject
matter jurisdiction is found to be lacking, the court must dismiss the action, id., or
remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). A Court may raise the question of subject matter
jurisdiction sua sponte. See Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002).
III.

Discussion

Defendant argues that this Court has diversity jurisdiction in this action. Notice of
Removal ¶ 5. The Court disagrees.
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s actual damages—coupled with emotional distress
damages and attorneys’ fees—Plaintiffs seek, is greater than $75,000. See id. ¶¶ 10-12.
Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s lost wage damages are at minimum five and one-half
months of her monthly salary of $8,612, totaling $47,366 calculated from resignation. Id.
Defendant further alleges that the awarded damages exceed $75,000 based on emotional
distress damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees. Id.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 22-00263-DOC-DFM

Date: May 10, 2022
Page 4

The Court will not include speculative civil penalties, emotional damages, or
attorneys’ fees to meet the amount in controversy requirement. See Galt G/S v. JSS
Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1156 (9th Cir. 1998) (“We hold that where an underlying
statute authorizes an award of attorneys’ fees, either with mandatory or discretionary
language, such fees may be included in the amount in controversy.”) (emphasis added).
As such, estimated lost wages, by Defendant’s own contention, would only total $47,366.
Notice of Removal ¶ 10. Although Defendant relies on the jury verdicts “in similar
cases,” Defendant makes no showing of how those cases are relevant, nonetheless
similar. The Court finds that Defendant has not shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Thus, the Court finds that it
lacks diversity jurisdiction over this matter.
IV.

Disposition

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby REMANDS this case to the
Orange County Superior Court, and VACATES the Scheduling Conference scheduled
for June 6, 2022.
The Clerk shall serve this minute order on the parties.
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk: dca/kdu