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)

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