Herrera v. G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc.

Filing 16

ORDER that the case be, and the same hereby is, REMANDED. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 10/24/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8

CHRISTOPHER HERRERA,

9
10
11
12
13

2:11-CV-1206 JCM (PAL)

Plaintiff,
v.
G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS, a Nevada
facility owned by G4S SECURE
SOLUTIONS, USA,
Defendants.

14
15
16

ORDER

17

Presently before the court is defendant G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc.’s motion to dismiss

18

counts one and two of plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc. #5). Defendant Christopher Herrera filed a pro

19

se opposition. (Doc. #9). Defendant then filed a reply. (Doc. #13). Defendant bases its motion on

20

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and/or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). (Doc. #9).

21

Plaintiff filed his complaint in state court in July 2011. (Doc. #1, Ex. A). Plaintiff’s

22

complaint alleges general and special damages “in a sum in excess of ten thousand ($10,000).”

23

(Doc. #1, Ex. A). Defendant removed the case to federal court on July 25, 2011. (Doc. #1).

24

Defendant asserted that this court had jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc.

25

#1).

26

In defendant’s petition for removal, defendant stated that it would consent to remand if

27

plaintiff would stipulate that “the amount of damages claimed by him . . . is and will forever be less

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

than $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs.” (Doc. #1). Plaintiff filed an objection to the

2

removal, stating that his “claims do not exceed $75,000.” (Doc. #8).

3

Prior to entertaining defendant’s motion to dismiss (doc. #5), this court must first satisfy

4

itself that it has jurisdiction over the civil action. A federal court can exercise diversity jurisdiction

5

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 only when (1) the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of

6

$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and (2) there is complete diversity between the parties. See

7

28 U.S.C. § 1332.

8
9

Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is in
controversy, the removing party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold. Where doubt regarding
the right to removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court.

10
11

Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). Finally, 28 U.S.C.

12

§ 1447© requires the district court to remand “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that

13

the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.”

14

Upon review of the complaint and plaintiff’s subsequent objection to removal, there is

15

significant doubt that “the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold.” Matheson, 319

16

F.3d at 1090. Thus, it appears that the court does not have jurisdiction. This court has the authority,

17

and duty, to remand sua sponte. See, e.g., United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360

18

F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004).

19

Accordingly,

20

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the above-captioned case

21

be, and the same hereby is, REMANDED.

22

DATED October 24, 2011.

23
24
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-