1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ) 11 JUDITH KAMEL, ) Case No.: CV 20-01677-CJC (ASx) ) 12 ) ) Plaintiff, 13 ) ) v. 14 ) ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING ) CASE TO STATE COURT 15 APL MARINE SERVICES, LTD.; APL ) ) 16 MARITIME, LTD.; and DOES 1 ) through 20, inclusive, ) 17 ) ) 18 Defendants. ) ) 19 20 21 On January 16, 2020, Plaintiff Judith Kamel filed this action in Los Angeles 22 County Superior Court against Defendants APL Marine Services, Ltd. and APL 23 Maritime, Ltd. (Dkt. 1-1 [Complaint, hereinafter “Compl.”].) Plaintiff alleges that on 24 September 12, 2018, she “suffered severe and disabling injuries while working as a 25 longshoreman.” (Id. ¶ 10.) Specifically, she fell on a catwalk because the catwalk 26 “lacked a safe and properly installed and maintained guardrail” at the time of the 27 accident.” (Id.) Plaintiff asserts one claim for negligence, asserting that Defendants 1 plaintiff, to harm from equipment under the active control” of Defendants. (Id.) She 2 seeks damages for medical expenses, lost earnings and benefits, and loss of earning 3 capacity. (Id. at 5.) 4 5 On February 13, 2020, Defendants removed, invoking diversity jurisdiction. A 6 defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to a federal district court if the 7 federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the action.

. 8 Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over cases that are between diverse parties and 9 involve an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000.

. Principles of 10 federalism and judicial economy require courts to “scrupulously confine their [removal] 11 jurisdiction to the precise limits which [Congress] has defined.” See Shamrock Oil & 12 Gas Corp. v. Sheets,

(1941). Indeed, “[n]othing is to be more jealously 13 guarded by a court than its jurisdiction.” See United States v. Ceja-Prado,

, 14 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted). The defendant removing the action to 15 federal court bears the burden of establishing that the district court has subject matter 16 jurisdiction over the action, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal 17 jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). 18 19 Federal courts have a duty to examine their subject matter jurisdiction whether or 20 not the parties raise the issue. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, 21 Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2004) (“[A] district court's duty to establish subject 22 matter jurisdiction is not contingent upon the parties' arguments.”). “The court may— 23 indeed must—remand an action sua sponte if it determines that it lacks subject matter 24 jurisdiction.” GFD, LLC v. Carter,

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012). 25 26 The only statement Defendants make to carry their burden of establishing this 27 Court has subject matter jurisdiction, and specifically that $75,000 is at issue, is this I have defended numerous lawsuits filed on behalf of 1 longshoremen. The vast majority of the local longshoremen 2 have yearly incomes in six figures. Given Plaintiff’s claims of greatly impaired earning capacity and fringe benefits, past and 3 future medical expenses, great mental, physical and nervous 4 pain and suffering, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. 5

6 (Dkt. 1 [Notice of Removal] ¶ 5.) 7

8 This does not come close to satisfying Defendants’ burden to establish this Court’s 9 removal jurisdiction, which is strictly construed against such jurisdiction. See Gaus, 980 10 F.2d at 566. A statement that other longshoremen make over $100,000 a year is not 11 sufficient to persuade the Court that Plaintiff had a similar income. Additionally, the 12 Complaint does not describe the nature of Plaintiff’s injuries, much less their extent, and 13 Defendants make no effort to describe them to the Court to help the Court evaluate 14 whether Defendants have met their burden. 15

16 Courts in this district have found that defendants who made a much better showing 17 of a $75,000 amount in controversy than Defendants did here failed to meet their burden. 18 For example, one court found that a defendant failed to show by a preponderance of the 19 evidence that the amount in controversy was met where the defendant’s calculations were 20 “based on many assumptions that leave the court to speculate as to the value of too many 21 variables.” Dupre v. Gen. Motors,

, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2010). 22 Here, Defendants did not present any calculations at all. Similarly, another court found 23 that a declaration regarding the Plaintiff’s hourly rate was not sufficient to show the 24 amount in controversy was met, especially without evidence regarding the number of 25 hours the Plaintiff worked, and where the complaint did not contain ay monetary figures 26 from which the court could ascertain an amount in controversy. Merricks-Barragan v. 27 1 || Complaint is devoid of salary information, and Defendants provide even less information 2 ||than the defendants in Merricks-Barragan, who at least provided some information 3 ||regarding the plaintiff’s salary. 4 5 ‘Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of 6 |}removal in the first instance.” Gaus,

. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte 7 || REMANDS this case to Los Angeles County Superior Court. 8 9 DATED: □ February 27, 2020 Jo fe 10 fo - ZL 1 CORMAC J. CARNEY 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28