Navarrete v. Ricoh USA, Inc.
Filing
12
ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer granting 10 Motion to Remand. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
RAUL NAVARRETE,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
No. 16-5899 CRB
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
REMAND
v.
RICOH USA, INC. ET AL.,
Defendants.
/
16
17
Plaintiff Raul Navarette was hit by a car, fracturing his spine and sustaining additional
18
injuries. See Notice of Removal (dkt. 1) Ex. 1 (Complaint) ¶ 6. He provided his employer,
19
RICOH, with his medical records, and inquired about accommodations. See id. ¶¶ 7–8.
20
Shortly thereafter, RICOH asserted that Plaintiff had abandoned his job, and terminated him.
21
See id. ¶ 9. Plaintiff brought suit in state court, alleging disability discrimination, failure to
22
provide reasonable accommodation, failure to engage in good faith interactive process,
23
failure to prevent discrimination, and wrongful termination—all state court claims. See
24
generally id. Defendant RICOH removed the case to this Court, asserting diversity
25
jurisdiction. See Notice of Removal ¶¶ 11–12. Plaintiff now moves to remand, arguing that
26
Defendant cannot establish sufficient facts to support the amount in controversy requirement
27
of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Mot. to Remand (dkt. 10). The Court finds this matter suitable for
28
resolution without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), and vacates the
1
2
motion hearing currently calendared for December 16, 2016.
“[T]he proponent of federal jurisdiction . . . has the burden to prove, by a
3
preponderance of the evidence, that removal is proper.” Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v.
4
Estate of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1106–07 (9th Cir. 2010). The removal
5
statute is “strictly construe[d] . . . against removal jurisdiction.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980
6
F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). “Where doubt regarding the right to removal
7
exists, a case should be remanded to state court.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins.
8
Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). Notwithstanding Defendant’s speculation about
9
extensive attorneys’ fees and punitive damages, Defendant has failed to demonstrate that
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Plaintiff’s damages, stemming from the loss of his $14.75 per hour job, see Dixon Decl. (dkt.
11
11-3) ¶ 2, more likely than not exceed $75,000.
12
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to remand.1
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
Dated: December 5, 2016
CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
The Court declines to enter Defendant’s requested order requiring Plaintiff to stipulate to
seeking less than the jurisdictional minimum. See Opp’n (dkt. 11) at 7.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?