Superchi v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. et al

Filing 15

ORDER granting 10 Motion to Remand signed by Judge Benjamin H Settle. The Clerk shall remand this matter to Clark County Superior Court.(MET)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8 JACOB SUPERCHI,
9

Plaintiff,

10

CASE NO. C12-5771 BHS
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO REMAND

v.

11 DOLLAR TREE STORES INC, a
Virginia corporation; and DOLLAR
12 TREE DISTRIBUTION, INC., a Virginia
corporation,
13
Defendants.
14
15
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff James Superchi’s (“Superchi”)
16
motion to remand (Dkt. 10). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of
17
and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby grants the
18
motion for the reasons stated herein.
19
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
20
On May 29, 2012, Superchi filed a complaint against Defendants Dollar Tree
21
Stores, Inc. and Dollar Tree Distribution, Inc. (“Dollar Tree”) in Clark County Superior
22

ORDER - 1

1 Court for the State of Washington asserting only state law causes of action. Dkt. 1, Exh.
2 A.
3

On September 24, 2012, Superchi filed a motion to remand. Dkt. 10. On October

4 12, 2012, Dollar Tree responded. Dkt. 14. Superchi did not reply.
5
6

II. DISCUSSION
The only issue before the Court is whether the Court may consider an amount of

7 reasonable attorney’s fees in the calculation of the jurisdictional minimum. A removing
8 defendant must “prove by a preponderance of the evidence” that the jurisdictional
9 minimum amount in controversy has been met. Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank. Nat’l Ass’n,
10 479 F.3d 994, 998 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co.,
11 443 F.3d 676, 683 (9th Cir. 2006)). Where a plaintiff has not instituted suit in federal
12 court, “[t]here is a strong presumption that the plaintiff has not claimed a large amount in
13 order to confer jurisdiction on a federal court . . . .” St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red
14 Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 290 (1938).
15

In this case, the parties submit differing estimates of the amount of attorney’s fees.

16 The Court finds that Superchi’s estimate of his counsel’s fees is just as reasonable as
17 Dollar Tree’s estimate of Superchi’s counsel’s fees. Therefore, the Court grants
18 Superchi’s motion to remand because Dollar Tree has failed to show by a preponderance
19 of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount.
20
21
22

ORDER - 2

1
2

III. ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Superchi’s motion to remand (Dkt. 10) is

3 GRANTED. The Clerk shall remand this matter to Clark County Superior Court.
4

Dated this 30th day of October, 2012.

A

5
6

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3