Emmons et al v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. et al

Filing 27

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 14) AND ORDERING Supplemental Briefing (Doc. 22): (1) The Findings and Recommendations filed 6/27/2013 (Doc. 14) are vacated; (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Administrative Relief for Leave for Suppl emental Briefing is GRANTED (Doc. 22); (3) On or before November 20, 2013, the parties may file optional supplemental briefing addressing whether Defendants have satisfied the preponderance of evidence standard of proof. Any supplemental briefing should not exceed 5 pages. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/5/2013. (Herman, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DOROTHEA EMMONS,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL
LABORATORIES, INC.,

No. 1:13-cv474 AWI-BAM
ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND ORDERING
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
(Docs. 14, 22)

15
Defendant.
16
17
18

On June 27, 2013, this Court issued Findings and Recommendations remanding this

19

action to the Stanislaus County Superior Court on the grounds that Defendants failed to establish

20

the jurisdictional amount in controversy to a legal certainty. (Doc. 14). In doing so, the Court

21

relied on Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 999 (9th Cir. 2007). On August 28,

22

2013, Defendants filed a notice of supplemental authority.

23

identifies the recent Ninth Circuit decision in Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC, where

24

the Ninth Circuit held that Lowdermilk has been “effectively overruled” by the Supreme Court’s

25

decision in Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles,

26

439 (2013). Rodriguez, 728 F.3d 975, 981 (9th Cir. 2013) (“We hold that Standard Fire has so

27

undermined the reasoning of our decision in Lowdermilk that the latter has been effectively

28

overruled.”)
1

U.S.

(Doc. 21). Defendants’ notice

, 133 S. Ct. 1345, 185 L. Ed. 2d

1

The Ninth Circuit found “the proper burden of proof imposed upon a defendant to

2

establish the amount in controversy requirement is the preponderance of the evidence standard.”

3

Id. This standard requires a defendant to “provide evidence establishing that it is ‘more likely

4

than not’ that the amount in controversy exceeds [the jurisdictional threshold].” Korn v. Polo

5

Ralph Lauren Corp., 536 F. Supp. 2d 1199, 1204 (E.D. Cal. 2008).

6

In light of this intervening law, this Court VACATES its Findings and Recommendations

7

issued June 27, 2013. Although the Court finds that the legal question of whether Defendants

8

satisfy the preponderance of evidence standard has been adequately briefed, the Court will allow

9

the parties to file additional briefing addressing application of the preponderance of evidence

10

standard, if they wish. The Court will issue new Findings and Recommendations applying the

11

preponderance of the evidence standard after the parties’ briefing, if any, is submitted.

12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1.

The Findings and Recommendations filed June 27, 2013 (Doc. 14) are vacated;

14

2.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Administrative Relief for Leave for Supplemental Briefing

15
16

is GRANTED (Doc. 22);
3.

On or before November 20, 2013, the parties may file optional supplemental

17

briefing addressing whether Defendants have satisfied the preponderance of

18

evidence standard of proof. Any supplemental briefing should not exceed five (5)

19

pages.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

November 5, 2013

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2