Dewar v. David

Filing 64

Order by Hon. James Donato denying 51 plaintiff's Motion to Remand. (jdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
JAMES DEWAR,

7

Case No. 15-cv-00113-JD

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING REMAND

9
ANTHONY DAVID,

10

Re: Dkt. No. 51

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Plaintiff James Dewar asks to remand this case back to the Circuit Court of Cook County

14

in Illinois, where he originally filed it. Dkt. No. 51 at 1. 1 Defendant removed under 28 U.S.C. §

15

1441(b), which creates federal jurisdiction when the parties are from different states and the

16

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Mr. Dewar contends that the amount in controversy does not meet the required threshold

17
18

because “the crux of what [he] seeks to accomplish by this action is to obtain an accounting of the

19

Trust.” Id. at 4. While that might be the crux of plaintiff’s goals in this case, his argument ignores

20

the fact that the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) includes, among other demands, a request for

21

a declaratory judgment for the “remaining principal in the Trust.” FAC ¶ 64, Dkt. No. 20-1.

22

When an action seeks declaratory relief, “it is well established that the amount in controversy is

23

measured by the value of the object of the litigation.” Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 840

24

(9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 347 (1977));

25

see also Chapman v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 651 F.3d 1039, 1045 (9th Cir. 2011)

26
1

27
28

After Dewar filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, defendant Anthony David removed the
case to the Northern District of Illinois and filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to
transfer to the Northern District of California. Dkt. Nos. 1, 10. The motion to transfer was
granted. Dkt. No. 24.

1

(determining that the amount in controversy was equal to the assessment value of the “object in

2

litigation,” or property). When Mr. Dewar filed his FAC on March 13, 2013, the trust account

3

exceeded $500,000.00. Dkt. No. 1; David Decl. ¶ 14, Dkt. No. 54-1. Currently, the value is

4

approximately $920,000.000. Id. ¶ 15. Because the “object in litigation” is, in part, the remaining

5

principal in the trust, and the amount of the principal exceeds the required $75,000, jurisdiction is

6

proper.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 1, 2015

9
________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2