Speed Technologies, LLC v. Bully Dog Sale & Distribution LLC et al

Filing 21

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' 12 brief concerning removal is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 5/3/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

SPEED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

BULLY DOG SALES & DISTRIBUTION,
LLC, et al.,

13
Defendants.
14
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:11-CV-0180!LRH!RAM
ORDER

Before the court is defendants’ brief that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 as
required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Doc. #12.1

17

On March 11, 2011, the court entered an order finding that defendants had failed to

18

establish that removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction was proper in their petition for removal

19

(Doc. #1) and granted defendants the opportunity to establish that the amount in controversy

20

between the parties exceeds $75,000 as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).2 Doc. #3.

21
22

Where, as here, it is not facially evident from the face of the complaint that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000, “the removing defendant bears the burden of establishing, by a

23
24

1

25

2

26

Refers to the court’s docket

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) provides that the district courts of the United States shall have original
jurisdiction over all civil actions between citizens of different states where the amount in controversy, exclusive
of interest and costs, exceeds $75,000.

1

preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $[75],000.” Sanchez v.

2

Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, defendants contend that the

3

amount in controversy requirement is met because plaintiff Speed Technologies paid defendants

4

over $900,000 under the contract that it now alleges has been breached by defendants. Further,

5

Speed Technologies has requested payment of over $450,000 for the alleged breach. See Doc. #12,

6

Exhibit 1. A plaintiff’s statement of damages after the filing of the complaint is relevant evidence

7

establishing the amount in controversy. See Cohen v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir.

8

2002). Therefore, the court finds that defendants have proffered sufficient evidence establishing an

9

amount in controversy greater than $75,000. Accordingly, the court shall accept defendants’

10

removal of this action and exercise diversity jurisdiction over the complaint.

11
12
13

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ brief concerning removal (Doc. #12) is
GRANTED.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

DATED this 3rd day of May, 2011.

16
17
18

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2