Gaines v. Bath & Body Works, LLC

Filing 14

ORDER granting 8 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 4/10/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF, cc: State Court w/Certified Docket - JM)

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

EUGENIA GAINES, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
BATH & BODY WORKS, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company; YET
UNKONWN EMPLOYEE; DOES I through
X, inclusive,

Case No. 2:17-cv-0612-APG-VCF
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
REMAND CASE TO STATE COURT
(ECF NO. 8)

Defendants.

11
12

Defendant Bath & Body Works, LLC (BBW) removed this case to federal court on

13

February 24, 2017. The plaintiff moved to remand the case to state court because the amount in

14

controversy does not meet this court’s jurisdictional floor of $75,000. ECF No. 8. The plaintiff

15

alleges that she has incurred medical expenses of $19,381.36, and that her recommended shoulder

16

surgery “appears to result from a preexisting bone spur,” rather than from the incident described

17

in her complaint. Id. at 2:27-3:4. Because it does not appear that the amount in controversy

18

exceeds $75,000, I remand this case to state court.

19

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger,

20

437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). “A federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case

21

unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville

22

Res., 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any

23

doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th

24

Cir. 1992) (citing Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979)).

25

Thus, courts “strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction.” Gaus, 980 F.2d

26

at 566. “The ‘strong presumption’ against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always

27

has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Id. Remand is required if the court lacks

28

1

subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see also Aguon-Schulte v. Guam Election

2

Comm’n, 469 F.3d 1236, 1240 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[R]emand may be ordered either for lack of

3

subject matter jurisdiction or for ‘any defect’ in the removal procedure.”).

4

“[I]n cases where a plaintiff’s state court complaint does not specify a particular amount

5

of damages, the removing defendant bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the

6

evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds [$75,000].” Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins.

7

Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). Broad allegations that the jurisdictional amount is met,

8

“‘although attempting to recite some ‘magical incantation,’ neither overcome[ ] the ‘strong

9

presumption’ against removal jurisdiction, nor satisf[y][the defendant]’s burden of setting forth,

10

in the removal petition itself, the underlying facts supporting its assertion that the amount in

11

controversy exceeds” $75,000. Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 689 (9th

12

Cir. 2006) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Gaus, 980 F.2d at 567); see also Singer v. State Farm

13

Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[R]emoval cannot be based simply upon

14

conclusory allegations where the ad damnum is silent.”) (internal quotations and citation

15

omitted).

16

“Where a complaint is unclear as to the total amount of damages sought, but alleges only

17

upper or lower limits or types of damages, a district court is free in its preponderance-of-the-

18

evidence analysis to make estimations of the amount of damages that could be obtained consistent

19

with the vague wording of the complaint.” Elliker v. Contractors Bonding & Ins. Co., 3:12-CV-

20

00438-RCJ-WGC, 2013 WL 757621 at *1 (D. Nev. Feb. 27, 2013) (citing Guglielmino v. McKee

21

Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 700-01 (9th Cir. 2007)). In making such analyses, district courts can

22

make “reasonable deductions, reasonable inferences, or other reasonable extrapolations from the

23

pleadings to determine whether it is facially apparent that a case is removable,” and “may use

24

their judicial experience and common sense in determining whether the case stated in a complaint

25

meets federal jurisdictional requirements.” Roe v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 613 F.3d 1058, 1061-

26

1062 (11th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

27
28
2

1

662, 679 (2009) (“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief . . . requires

2

the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”).

3

Here, there is considerable doubt as to BBW’s right to remove this case because it appears

4

highly unlikely that the amount in controversy exceeds this court’s jurisdictional threshold. The

5

plaintiff alleges that her medical bills are approximately $19,000.00. ECF No. 8 at 2:27. BBW

6

contends that the plaintiff’s counsel previously stated the plaintiff needed shoulder surgery, and

7

that he values the case at $150,000 to $200,000. ECF No. 11 at 2. But the plaintiff points out that

8

the shoulder surgery “appears to result from a preexisting bone spur,” rather than from the

9

incident described in her complaint. Id. at 2:27-3:4. Thus, it does not factor into the amount in

10

controversy in this case. Moreover, the statements made by the plaintiff’s counsel during

11

settlement discussions are not, in this case, sufficient to convince me that the amount at issue

12

meets or exceeds $75,000, especially given the low amount of her medical bills.

13

Based on my judicial, legal, and practical experience and common sense, I find that BBW

14

has not met its burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in

15

controversy exceeds $75,000. Roe, 613 F.3d at 1061-1062; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Consequently,

16

I must remand this action to state court.

17
18
19

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED the case is remanded to the state court from which it was
removed for all further proceedings. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close this case.
Dated: April 10, 2017.

20
21

ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3