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)

Download PDF
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?