Rezvan Ghaderi v. Amazon.com Services LLC et al

Filing 23

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge David O. Carter: Denying 13 Plaintiff's MOTION to Remand. Parties shall appear November 18, 2024 at 8:30 AM as set for Scheduling Conference. The Clerk shall serve this minute order on the parties. SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. (twdb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:24-cv-01968-DOC

Date: November 15, 2024

Title: Rezvan Ghaderi v. Amazon.com Services LLC et al.

PRESENT:
THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE
Karlen Dubon
Courtroom Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
PLAINTIFF:
None Present

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
DEFENDANT:
None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND
Before the Court is a Motion to Remand (“Motion” or “Mot.”) (Dkt. 13) brought
by Plaintiff Rezvan Ghaderi (“Plainitff”) on October 10, 2024. The Court finds this
matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal.
R. 7-15. Having reviewed the moving papers submitted by the parties, the Court
DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion.
I.

Background
A.

Facts

The following facts are drawn from Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Compl.”) (Dkt. 1).
Plaintiff, Rezvan Ghaderi, was a remote employee of Defendant, Amazon.com Services
LLC, in Stanton, California. Id. ¶ 1. Plaintiff began working for Defendant as a Software
Engineer on August 10, 2020. Id. ¶ 7. In March of 2022, Shipra Gupta was introduced as
Plaintiff’s new manager. Id. ¶ 12. Plaintiff claims that after Gupta became manager, they
began to hire young, Indian/South Asian women. Id. ¶ 13. Plaintiff contends that Gupta
would make it clear that she did not like Plaintiff when she began criticizing her work
and providing no positive feedback. Id. ¶ 15. Plaintiff states that Gupta would treat the
younger, Indian/South Asian workers nicer. Id. ¶ 16. Plaintiff claims that Plaintiff was up

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:24-cv-01968-DOC

Date: November 15, 2024
Page 2

for a promotion prior to Gupta being manager, but after Gupta was Plaintiff’s manager,
Gupta discouraged Plaintiff’s promotion. Id. ¶ 20. Plaintiff claims that Gupta would yell
at Plaintiff in team meetings and would humiliate Plaintiff because of their technical
opinion or for caring about a project. Id. ¶ 25-6.
Plaintiff claims that due to the treatment by Gupta, Plaintiff developed headaches
and vertigo. Id. ¶ 29. Plaintiff’s orthopedic doctor issued a disability certificate on
October 23, 2022, because of Plaintiff’s stress. Id. Plaintiff alleges they were forced to
quit because of role elimination, and Plaintiff was offered five weeks of severance pay,
which Plaintiff declined. Id. ¶ 30. Plaintiff raises claims of discrimination, harassment,
and wrongful termination. See generally Compl.
B.

Procedural History

Plaintiff filed their Complaint in Orange County Superior Court on March 13,
2024 (Compl.). On September 11, 2024, Defendant filed their Notice of Removal to this
Court (“Not. of Removal”) (Dkt. 1). Defendant then filed their Answer to the Complaint
on September 18, 2024 (Dkt. 10). The present Motion was filed on October 10, 2024, by
Plaintiff to remand this case (“Mot.”) (Dkt. 13). Defendant filed their Opposition to the
Motion to Remand on October 28, 2024 (“Opp’n.”) (Dkt. 21).
II.

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.
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). 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).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:24-cv-01968-DOC

Date: November 15, 2024
Page 3

Remand may be ordered for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or any defect in the
removal procedure. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Removal of state actions is allowed only if the
plaintiff could have originally filed the action in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The
party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. See Ethridge
v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988). Furthermore, courts
construe the removal statute strictly against removal. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564,
566 (9th Cir. 1992). If there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance,
remand must be ordered. See id.
III.

Discussion
A.

Diversity

Because LLCs resemble both partnerships and corporations, the Ninth Circuit
treats LLCs like partnerships for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Johnson v.
Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Thus, like a
partnership, an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.
Id.; see also NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 612 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting
Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899) (“A limited liability company ‘is a citizen of every state of
which its owners/members are citizens,’ not the state in which it was formed or does
business.”). A corporation is deemed a citizen of every State by which it has “been
incorporated and of the State…where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C.S. §
1332 (c)(1). Determining the principal place of business of a corporation is done using
the “nerve center” test. Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 93 (2010). The “nerve center”
is the “place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the
corporation’s activities.” Id. at 92-3. This should normally be the corporation’s
headquarters, provided that the headquarters is not merely an office where board
meetings are held. Id. at 93.
Here, Plaintiff argues that there is no complete diversity because Plaintiff is a
resident of California and Defendant’s principal place of business is in California. Mot. at
4. Defendant contends the parties are completely diverse because Defendant,
Amazon.com Services LLC, is a limited liability company organized under the laws of
the state of Delaware. Not. of Removal at 4. The sole member of Defendant LLC is
Amazon.com Sales, Inc., which is also incorporated in Delaware with its principal place
of business in Washington. Id. Defendant states the corporate headquarters are in Seattle,
Washington. Id. The other named Defendant, Shipra Gupta, is a citizen of Washington.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:24-cv-01968-DOC

Date: November 15, 2024
Page 4

Id. The only dispute arises concerning the citizenship of Defendant Amazon.com
Services, LLC.
Since Defendant is an LLC, its citizenship is determined by its sole member,
Amazon.com Sales, Inc. Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899. Amazon.com Sales, Inc. is a
corporation incorporated in Delaware. In addition, Amazon.com Sales, Inc., is
headquartered in Washington, and Defendant states that the “primary executive,
administrative, financial, and management functions are in Washington, where its
corporate officer direct, control, and coordinate its activities.” Not. of Removal at 4.
Based on the decision making and control of corporate officers in Washington on behalf
of Amazon.com Sales, Inc., Washington is the nerve center of its operations. Thus,
Amazon.com Sales, Inc., the sole member of Defendant, renders Defendant’s citizenship
in Washington. The parties are completely diverse.
B.

Amount in Controversy

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.
Allstate Ins. Co., 897 F. Supp. 447, 450 (S.D. Cal. 1995) (quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,
980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992)). 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,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:24-cv-01968-DOC

Date: November 15, 2024
Page 5

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.
Here, the Plaintiff’s Complaint does not affirmatively allege an amount in
controversy over $75,000. Thus, Defendant must show the jurisdiction minimum is
satisfied, which the Court holds the Defendant has done. Defendant has shown that is
more likely than not that the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 minimum
because the Plaintiff seeks lost wages where their annual salary was around $240,000.
Not. at 5. Defendants specify that Amazon terminated Plaintiff on or about March 20,
2023, making the back pay damages in controversy from the date of termination to the
time of removal more than $360,000. Id. Defendant makes reasonable, conservative
calculations regarding possible emotional and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees for
employment cases. See generally id. The total damages sought using these estimates
indicate it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy will exceed $75,000.
Federalism is not the only loser in Congress’s failure to increase the amount in
controversy. When a case is improperly removed, as happened here, ultimate resolution is
delayed. Moreover, if a court does not immediately remand a case sua sponte, a plaintiff
may move to remand. Because cases subject to motion to remand are typically small
dollar cases, this increased motion work can quickly cause attorneys’ fees to outrun any
potential recovery and places an immense burden on a plaintiff’s lawyer working on
contingency. In this respect, the current low jurisdictional threshold reduces access to
justice. Therefore, the Court respectfully encourages Congress to reconsider the amount
in controversy minimum.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:24-cv-01968-DOC

Date: November 15, 2024
Page 6

IV.

Disposition
For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand.
Parties shall appear November 18, 2024 at 8:30 AM as set for Scheduling
Conference.
The Clerk shall serve this minute order on the parties.

MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk: kdu