Walls v. Emeritus Corporation, et al

Filing 23

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., on 8/28/13 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 7 remand motion is GRANTED, and this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California in the County of Sacramento. Certified copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

15

)
)
2:13-cv-00813-GEB-EFB
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
v.
)
REMAND
)
EMERITUS CORPORATION, dba
)
EMERITUS AT LAGUNA CREEK,
)
EMERITUS MANAGEMENT, LLC,
)
EMERITUS SENIOR LIVING CORP.,
)
and DOES 1 through 50,
)
inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )
Plaintiff moves for an order remanding this case to the state

16

court from which it was removed, arguing, inter alia, that Defendants’

17

assertion in the notice of removal that diversity removal jurisdiction

18

supports removal is untimely made and is unsupported. Plaintiff cites

19

and quotes Harris v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 425 F.3d 689, 694 (9th

20

Cir. 2005), in support of her position, arguing that

21

to

22

receiving a ‘paper’ . . . that revealed the case was removable.” Id.

23

The “paper” on which Defendants rely as justification for removal is

24

referenced in the Notice of Removal, which was filed April 25, 2013, in

25

Defendants’ following contentions:

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

26
27
28

JUDITH WALLS, by and through her
guardian ad litem, MARGOT WALLS,

demonstrate

that

they

removed

the

case

within

“[D]efendants had
thirty

Plaintiff’s complaint does not state the amount of
alleged damages in controversy for this case[;
however, o]n April 10, 2013, Defendants’ counsel
wrote to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting that
Plaintiff stipulate by April 17, 2013 that she
1

days

of

1

3

seeks damages less than $75,000. Plaintiff’s
counsel
never
responded
to
the letter,
so
Defendants filed this notice of removal within
thirty days of ascertaining that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 . . . .

4

(Not. of Removal ¶ 6, ECF No. 2.) The referenced April 10, 2013 letter

5

(“April 10 letter”), states in pertinent part:

2

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Please be advised that we are currently assessing
the above-referenced matter and would like to reach
a stipulation with regard to damages. . . . [W]e
would like to stipulate with you that damages in
this matter do not exceed $75,000. Please respond
by written correspondence with regard to whether
you are amenable to such a stipulation on or before
April 17, 2013. If you are willing to stipulate, we
are willing to coordinate ADR with a mediator that
is mutually acceptable. If you are not amenable and
you believe that this matter has value greater than
$75,000, please let me know.
(Not. of Removal, York Decl., Ex. B.).

14

I. LEGAL STANDARD

15

Removal based on diversity jurisdiction is only proper when

16

a case originally filed in state court is between citizens of different

17

states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C.

18

§ 1332(a). “The removal statute is strictly construed against removal

19

jurisdiction[, and] [t]he defendant bears the burden of establishing

20

that removal is proper.” Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome,

21

Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted) (citing

22

Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002)); Cal. ex

23

rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004)). “Where

24

doubt regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be remanded

25

to state court.”

26

1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam).

Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d

27

The removant “must show that ‘the matter in controversy

28

exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.’”
2

1

Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004)

2

(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)) (citing Matheson v. Progressive Specialty

3

Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam); Sanchez v.

4

Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 403–04 (9th Cir. 1996)).

5

8

[I]f the case stated by the initial pleading is not
removable, a notice of removal may be filed within
30 days after receipt by the defendant, through
service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended
pleading, motion, order or other paper from which
it may first be ascertained that the case is one
which is or has become removable.

9

28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3). Further, “when the complaint does not contain

10

any specific amount of damages sought, the party seeking removal under

11

diversity bears the burden of showing, by a preponderance of the

12

evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory amount.”

13

Lewis v. Verizon Comm’cns, Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 397 (9th Cir. 2010)

14

(citing Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

15

2007)).

6
7

16

II. DISCUSSION

17

Plaintiff argues, inter alia, that “[b]ecause Defendant[s]

18

failed to meet [their] burden regarding the amount in controversy

19

. . . , remand is proper.” (Pl.’s Mem. of Pts. & Auth. in Supp. of Pl.’s

20

Mot. to Remand 4:11–12, ECF No. 8.) Defendants counter that the amount

21

in controversy requirement is met since “Plaintiff’s counsel never

22

responded to [the April 10 letter and that] Defendants filed [a] notice

23

of removal within thirty days of ascertaining that the amount in

24

controversy exceeds $75,000.” (Not. of Removal ¶ 6.)

25

Since Plaintiff’s complaint “does not contain any specific

26

amount of damages sought,” Defendants have “the burden of showing, by a

27

preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds

28

the statutory amount.” Lewis, 627 F.3d at 397. Defendants argue that the
3

1

amount in controversy requirement is satisfied by any of the following:

2

(1) Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants’ April 10 letter, which

3

provides sufficient evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds

4

$75,000; (2) Plaintiff’s special damages for medical expenses, general

5

damages for pain and suffering, and punitive damages exceed $75,000; or

6

(3) Plaintiff’s claim for restitution (which Defendants calculate to be

7

$34,535) coupled with her attorney’s fees (which Defendants estimate

8

will be at least $40,000) exceed $75,000.

9

Only Defendants’ removal argument based on the April 10 letter

10

is addressed since Defendants failed to provide evidence that the

11

remainder of their removal arguments were timely made under 28 U.S.C.

12

§ 1446(b). “[S]ection 1446(b) identifies two thirty-day periods for

13

removing a case. The first thirty-day removal period is triggered ‘if

14

the case stated by the initial pleading is removable on its face.’”

15

Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 885 (9th Cir. 2010)

16

(quoting Harris, 425 F.3d at 694). “The second thirty-day removal period

17

is triggered if the initial pleading does not indicate that the case is

18

removable, and the defendant receives ‘a copy of an amended pleading,

19

motion, order or other paper’ from which removability may first be

20

ascertained.” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)).

21

Defendants argue since they “offered to mediate [in the April

22

10 letter] if [Plaintiff] agreed that any settlement would not exceed

23

$75,000 [and Plaintiff] refused, [there] is clear evidence that the

24

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.” (Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot.

25

1:28–2:1, ECF No. 15.)

26

Plaintiff counters that “Defendants’ own observation that

27

Plaintiff declined to respond to the proposed stipulation is unavailing

28

since a declination to respond does not constitute a pleading or paper

4

1

sufficient

2

4:21–23, ECF No. 19.)

3

to

give

rise

to

diversity

jurisdiction.”

(Pl.’s

Reply

Since Defendants’ attempt “to force [P]laintiff to enter a

4

stipulation

5

constitute “a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper”

6

within the meaning prescribed in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), that attempt is

7

insufficient to sustain Defendants’ burden of establishing that the

8

amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 at the time of removal. Conrad

9

Assocs. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 994 F. Supp. 1196, 1199 (N.D.

10

Cal. 1998) (citing Angus v. Shiley, Inc., 989 F.2d 142 (3d Cir. 1993)).

11

III. CONCLUSION

regarding

the

potential

amount

of

damages”

does

not

12

For the stated reasons, Defendants have not that the amount in

13

controversy exceeded $75,000 at the time of removal, and alternatively,

14

the removal was untimely. Therefore, Plaintiff’s remand motion is

15

GRANTED, and this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California

16

in the County of Sacramento.

17

Dated:

August 28, 2013

18
19
20

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5