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

Filing 18

ORDER that the court shall accept Defendants removal of this action and exercise diversity jurisdiction over the complaint. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 10/5/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Download PDF
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 18 19 Before the court is Defendant Trump Ruffin Tower I, LLC’s (“Defendant”) Supplement to its Statement in Removal. Doc. #12.1 Plaintiff Kenneth Ventrella (“Plaintiff”) initiated the present action against defendants on 20 May 18, 2012, in the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada. On August 15, 2012, 21 Defendant Trump Ruffin Tower I, LLC removed this action to federal court on the basis of 22 diversity jurisdiction. Doc. #1. 23 24 On August 22, 2012, the court reviewed the removal petition and held that it was not clear from the complaint that the amount in controversy had been met. Doc. #11. The court granted 25 26 1 Refers to the court’s docket 1 defendant twenty days to establish the amount in controversy by submitting summary judgment 2 type evidence to the court. Id. Thereafter, Defendant filed a supplement to its petition for removal. 3 Doc. #12. 4 5 6 The court has reviewed Defendant’s supplement for removal and finds that Defendant has established that the amount in controversy has been met. Where, as here, it is not facially evident from the face of the complaint that the amount in 7 controversy exceeds $75,000, “the removing defendant bears the burden of establishing, by a 8 preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $[75],000.” Sanchez v. 9 Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, Defendant contends that the 10 amount in controversy requirement is met because Plaintiff claims to have sustained injuries 11 requiring pain management treatment, and medical specials in the amount of 32,050.48. Further, 12 Plaintiff’s counsel has made a $100,000 settlement demand against Defendant. See Doc. #12. A 13 plaintiff’s statement of damages after the filing of the complaint is relevant evidence establishing 14 the amount in controversy. See Cohen v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2002). 15 Therefore, the court finds that defendants have proffered sufficient evidence establishing an amount 16 in controversy greater than $75,000. Accordingly, the court shall accept Defendant’s removal of 17 this action and exercise diversity jurisdiction over the complaint. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 DATED this 5th day of October, 2012. 21 22 __________________________________ LARRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 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?