Cicero v. Target Corporation
Filing
13
ORDER Granting 8 Motion to Remand to State Court. Plaintiff is precluded from arguing for damages in excess of $75,000 in any subsequent state court proceeding. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 6/23/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF; CC: State Court with Certified Copy of Order and Docket Sheet - SLR)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
RINA CICERO,
8
9
2:13-CV-619 JCM (GWF)
Plaintiff(s),
10
v.
11
TARGET CORP.,
12
Defendant(s).
13
14
15
ORDER
16
Presently before the court is plaintiff Rina Cicero’s motion to remand. (Doc. #8). Defendant
17
filed a response. (Doc. #12). Plaintiff did not file a reply.
18
I.
Factual Background
19
Plaintiff alleges that on or about February 29, 2012, she fell and was injured by a speed bump
20
negligently maintained by defendant Target Corporation in Clark County, Nevada. On February 28,
21
2013, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant in state court, and plaintiff filed an amended
22
complaint on March 13, 2013. Defendant timely removed this case to this court on April 10, 2013,
23
on the basis that diversity of citizenship existed and that the amount in controversy exceeded the sum
24
of $75,000.
25
II.
Legal Standard
26
A complaint filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the federal court would
27
have had original jurisdiction over the action had it been brought there in the first place. See 28
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
1
U.S.C. § 1441(a). This court has original subject matter jurisdiction over two types of cases. First,
2
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), the court has diversity jurisdiction over suits between citizens of
3
different states, for which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Second, pursuant to 28
4
U.S.C. § 1331, this court has federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the
5
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
6
In deciding whether removal is proper, courts strictly construe the removal statute against
7
finding jurisdiction, and the party invoking the statute bears the burden of establishing that removal
8
was appropriate. Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th
9
Cir. 2009); see also California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004)
10
(“The removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction, and the burden of
11
establishing federal jurisdiction falls to the party invoking the statute”). “Where doubt regarding the
12
right to removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty
13
Ins, Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th
14
Cir. 1992).
15
III.
Analysis
16
Plaintiff argues that the case should be remanded to state court because the case does not
17
meet the amount in controversy requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiff argues that
18
because she demanded $74,999.99, the amount in controversy requirement of $75,000 was not met.
19
Defendant argues that plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damages demonstrate that the amount in
20
controversy is met. In the alternative, defendant argues that if the motion to remand is granted, this
21
court should enter an order establishing that plaintiff has not been damaged in excess of $75,000.
22
In order to establish diversity jurisdiction, two elements must be established: diversity of
23
citizenship and amount in controversy. The diversity of citizenship requirement is not at issue here.
24
Plaintiff is a resident of Nevada and defendant is a Minnesota corporation with its principal place
25
of business in Minnesota. Thus, there is complete diversity between the parties.
26
The second element that must be established is the amount in controversy in excess of
27
$75,000. “Generally, the amount in controversy is determined from the face of the pleadings.” Crum
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-2-
1
v. Circus Circus Enter., 231 F.3d 1129, 1131 (2000). However, in the removal context where the
2
amount in controversy is not facially evident from the complaint, a defendant must show by a
3
preponderance of evidence that amount in controversy exceeds the required $75,000 and may do so
4
by presenting evidence external to the pleadings. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115,
5
1117 (9th Cir. 2004).
6
In Nevada, a plaintiff in state court must include in the complaint a recital seeking more than
7
$10,000 in order to invoke the general jurisdiction of the district court and avoid the limited
8
jurisdiction of the justice court, whether the plaintiff in fact seeks $10,000.01 or $10,000,000,000.
9
Here, plaintiff pled this in her complaint. She therefore claims at least $10,000 in damages. In her
10
motion to remand, plaintiff argues that her demand is for $74,999.99, and thus this matter does not
11
invoke this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant argues that the amount in controversy has
12
been met based on the amount of medical bills plaintiff has incurred. (See doc. # 12, Ex. A).
13
Defendant offered to stipulate to remand this action to state court if plaintiff limited her
14
damages to $75,000. (See id., Ex. B). Plaintiff has not signed the stipulation. Plaintiff’s decision
15
not to sign the stipulation indicates that she believes that the amount in controversy is in excess of
16
$75,000 which would weigh in favor of denying plaintiff’s motion. However, the burden is on
17
defendant to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 by a preponderance of the
18
evidence and defendant has failed to satisfy that burden here. The amount of medical expenses
19
before the court is $24,764.43. Although in its petition for removal, defendant argues that plaintiff’s
20
claims total damages of $375,000, defendant has not submitted any evidence to support this
21
representation. Therefore, the amount of controversy has not been met and this court lacks subject
22
matter jurisdiction over this matter.
23
Additionally, the court finds that based on plaintiff’s arguments in her motion to remand that
24
her damages are limited to $74,999.99, plaintiff is judicially estopped from arguing for more than
25
$75,000 in damages. Other district courts have held that plaintiffs are judicially estopped from
26
taking positions in the future that are inconsistent with their complaint stating that they were not
27
seeking damages in excess of the diversity jurisdiction amount of $75,000. Ratliff v. Merck & Co.,
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-3-
1
Inc., 359 F. Supp.2d 571, 576 (E.D. Ky. 2005). In Ratliff, although the plaintiffs did not file a
2
stipulation limiting their damages to under $75,000, the court held that because the complaint alleged
3
that damages would not exceed $75,000, plaintiffs were judicially estopped from taking an
4
inconsistent position in the future. Id. Here, plaintiff has taken this position in her motion to remand
5
and therefore is judicially estopped from arguing for damages in excess of $75,000 in state court.
6
IV.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing discussion, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff’s motion to
remand (doc. #8) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case be, and the same hereby is, REMANDED to state
court due to this court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff is precluded from arguing for damages in excess
14
of $75,000 in any subsequent state court proceeding.
15
DATED June 26, 2013.
16
17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-4-
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?