Lawson vs Heffington, et al

Filing 5

ORDER DENYING # 4 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 11/19/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
DARRYL LAWSON,
7
Plaintiff,
8
vs.
9
JACOB HEFFINGTON et al.,
10
Defendants.
11

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:14-cv-00571-RCJ-WGC
ORDER

12
13

This case arises out of a car accident in a Wal-Mart parking lot. Pending before the Court

14

is a Motion to Remand (ECF No. 4). For the reasons given herein, the Court denies the motion.

15

I.

16

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Darryl Lawson was injured on April 4, 2013 when Defendant Jacob Heffington

17

negligently drove a vehicle in front of him in a Wal-Mart parking lot. (See Compl. ¶¶ 8–13, ECF

18

No. 1, at 10). Plaintiff sued Heffington and Heffington’s employer, Paragon Geophysical

19

Services, Inc. (“PGS”), whose vehicle Heffington was driving, for negligence in state court. (See

20

id. ¶ 9). PGS removed. Heffington does not appear to have been served. Plaintiff has moved to

21

remand based on the amount in controversy.

22

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS

23

Assuming complete diversity between the parties, federal courts have jurisdiction over

24

state claw claims where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

25

Where a complaint specifies no precise amount of damages, a removing defendant bears the

1

burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds

2

$75,000. See Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 403–04 (9th Cir. 1996).

3

III.

4

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff adduces an April 14, 2014 demand letter counsel sent to PGS in which counsel

5

listed Plaintiff’s medical bills to date as $8289.40. However, counsel in that letter also noted that

6

it would settle the case for $75,000.00, indicating that the case is in fact worth at least that much

7

in Plaintiff’s view. The letter tends to show that counsel will ask a jury for at least that much,

8

and Plaintiff is in fact more than likely to recover at least that much if a jury were to accept

9

Plaintiff’s claims that he is entitled to past and future medical bills, past and future loss of

10

income, and past and future general damages, i.e., “extreme anguish, pain and suffering” based

11

on injuries to, inter alia, his spine, as he has prayed for in the Complaint. (Compl. ¶¶ 4–5).1

12

CONCLUSION

13

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Remand (ECF No. 4) is DENIED.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated this 13th day of of November, 2014.
Dated this 19th day November, 2014.

16

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

1

Consideration of a demand letter as evidence of the amount in controversy does not
offend Evidence Rule 408. Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 840 & n.3 (9th Cir. 2002) (“A
settlement letter is relevant evidence of the amount in controversy if it appears to reflect a
reasonable estimate of the plaintiff’s claim. We reject the argument that Fed. R. Evid. 408
prohibits the use of settlement offers in determining the amount in controversy.”).
Page 2 of 2