Stephens v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Filing 12

ORDER granting 6 Motion to Remand to State Court. The Clerk of Court is instructed to remand this case back to the Eighth Judicial District Court, Case No. A-14-709590-C, and close this matter. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 3/5/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - cc State Court - DKJ)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

SHERON STEPHENS,

8
9

Case No. 2:14-cv-02003-RFB-NJK

Plaintiff,
v.

10

WAL-MART STORES, INC.

11

Defendant.

12
13

On December 2, 2014, Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Defendant”) petitioned to

14

remove the instant matter to this Court. ECF No. 1. On December 16, Plaintiff Sheron Stephens

15

(“Plaintiff”) moved to remand the matter back to state court on the grounds that the value of

16

Plaintiff’s claim does not exceed $75,000.00 as required by 28 U.S.C § 1332. ECF No. 6. On

17

January 2, 2015, Defendant filed a response to the motion to remand, which included

18

documentation of Defendant’s proposed remand stipulations, and indicated “no opposition to

19

Plaintiff’s request to remand this matter if the amount in controversy is, as Plaintiff now claims,

20

not met.” Response, 1:19–20, ECF No. 10. Plaintiff did not file a reply.

21

Between diverse parties, “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil

22

actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of

23

interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction

24

means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v.

25

Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “Where it is not facially evident from the

26

complaint that more than $75,000 is in controversy, the removing party must prove, by a

27

preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold.

28

Where doubt regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court.”

1

Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations

2

omitted).

3

Here, an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000 is not facially evident from the

4

complaint. Furthermore, Defendant has not provided any evidence (in its removal petition, ECF

5

No. 1, response to Plaintiff’s motion to remand, ECF No. 10, or any other filed document) to

6

prove that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Therefore, this Court lacks subject

7

matter jurisdiction and must remand the matter back to the state court. Accordingly,

8

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to remand, ECF No. 6, is

9

GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is instructed to remand this case back to the Eighth Judicial

10
11

District Court, Case No. A-14-709590-C, and close this matter.
DATED: March 5, 2015

12
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-