Ventrella v. Trump Ruffin Tower I, LLC dba Trump International Hotel Las Vegas

Filing 11

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 8/22/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

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

9

KENNETH VENTRELLA,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

TRUMP RUFFIN TOWER I, LLC dba
TRUMP INTERNATIONAL HOTEL LAS
VEGAS; DOES I through XX, inclusive and
ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES I through XX,
inclusive,

13
14
15

Defendants.

2:12-cv-01450-LRH-CWH
ORDER

16
17

Plaintiff Kenneth Ventrella initiated this action in the Eighth Judicial District Court for

18

Clark County, Nevada on May 18, 2012. On August 15, 2012, on the basis of diversity

19

jurisdiction, Defendant Trump Ruffin Tower I, LLC dba Trump International Hotel Las Vegas

20

(hereafter “Defendant”) filed a notice of removal to this court (#11 ).

21

After review of the complaint and Defendant’s petition for removal, the court finds that it

22

requires more evidence to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

23

While it appears that the parties are of diverse citizenship,2 Defendant has not demonstrated that the

24
25

1

26

2

Refers to the court’s docket

entry number.

Plaintiff is a citizen of Illinois and Defen dan t is a corporation organized and existing under the law s
of the State of Delaw are and has its principal place of business in Delaw are.

1
2

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
“[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

sum greater than the jurisdictional requirement. Id.

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

relies solely on the allegations in the complaint.

However, the court finds that it is not facially

9

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

10

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

11

jurisdictional threshold. Accordingly, jurisdiction has not been established.

12

The court will provide Defendant additional time to present “summary-judgment-type

13

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

14

controversy requirement.

15

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

16

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

17

opposition. No reply is required.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

DATED this 22nd day of August, 2012.

20
__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26

3