Webster v. Beazer Homes Holdings Corp.

Filing 9

ORDER that Defendant is granted 20 days to establish the minimum amount in controversy for federal jurisdiction. Plaintiff is granted 10 days to file an opposition. No reply is required. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 6/9/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

9
10

CAROLYN WEBSTER an individual
formerly d/b/a/ AZ-U-WISH CRCC, LLC, a
Domestic Limited Liability Company,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

BEAZER HOMES HOLDINGS CORP.,
DOES I - X, inclusive, and ROE
CORPORATIONS X-XX, inclusive,

14
15

Defendants.

2:11-cv-00784-LRH-RJJ
ORDER

16
Plaintiff Carolyn Webster initiated this action in the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark
17
County, Nevada on April 18, 2011. On May 16, 2011, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction,
18
Defendant Beazer Homes Holdings Corp. filed a notice of removal to this court (#11).
19
After review of the complaint and Defendant’s petition for removal, the court finds that it
20
requires more evidence to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over this case.
21
While it appears that the parties are of diverse citizenship,2 Defendant has not demonstrated that the
22
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
23
24

1

25

2

26

Refers to the court’s docket entry number.

Plaintiff is a citizen of Missouri; AZ-U-WISH CRCC, LLC was at all relevant times a limited liability
corporation authorised to do business in Clark County, Nevada. Defendant is incorporated under the laws of
Delaware.

1

“[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States

2

have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant . . . to the district court of the United

3

States for any district . . . where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Among other

4

reasons, the district courts of the United States have “original jurisdiction” where there is diversity

5

of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs,

6

exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

7

“If . . . it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be

8

remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to

9

the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)

10

(citing Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979)). Moreover, the

11

removal statute is construed restrictively and in favor of remanding a case to state court. See

12

Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 (1941); Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566.

13

After a defendant files a petition for removal, the court must determine whether federal

14

jurisdiction exists, even if no objection is made to removal. See Rains v. Criterion Systems, Inc.,

15

80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996). The defendant always has the burden of establishing that

16

removal is proper. Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. Normally this burden is satisfied if the plaintiff claims a

17

sum greater than the jurisdictional requirement. Id.

18

However, if the plaintiff does not claim a sum greater than the jurisdiction requirement, the

19

defendant cannot meet its burden by merely alleging that the amount in controversy is met: “The

20

authority which the statute vests in the court to enforce the limitations of its jurisdiction precludes

21

the idea that jurisdiction may be maintained by mere averment . . . .” Id. (quoting McNutt v. Gen.

22

Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)) (emphasis omitted).

23

In some cases, it may be “‘facially apparent’ from the complaint that the jurisdictional

24

amount is in controversy.” See Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir.

25

1997) (delineating the “appropriate procedure for determining the amount in controversy on

26

2

1

removal” as described in Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326 (5th Cir. 1995)). However,

2

“[w]hen the amount is not facially apparent from the complaint, the court may consider facts in the

3

removal petition and may require parties to submit summary-judgment-type evidence relevant to

4

the amount in controversy at the time of removal.” Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976, 980

5

(9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

6

Here, in arguing that the amount in controversy requirement has been satisfied, Defendant

7

relies solely on the allegations in the complaint. However, the court finds that it is not facially

8

apparent from the complaint that more than $75,000 is in controversy. To the contrary, based on

9

the allegations in the complaint, the amount in controversy could easily be less than the

10
11

jurisdictional threshold. Accordingly, jurisdiction has not been established.
The court will provide Defendant additional time to present “summary-judgment-type

12

evidence” showing by a preponderance of the evidence that this case meets § 1332(a)’s amount in

13

controversy requirement.

14

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant is granted twenty (20) days to establish the

15

minimum amount in controversy for federal jurisdiction. Plaintiff is granted ten (10) days to file an

16

opposition. No reply is required.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

DATED this 9th day of June, 2011.

19
__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

3