1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EASTERN DIVISION 11 ) 12 ROBERT WALK, ) Case No.: EDCV 20-00565-CJC (SHKx) ) 13 ) ) Plaintiff, 14 ) ) v. 15 ) ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING ) CASE TO SAN BERNARDINO 16 UNDER ARMOUR, INC., ) COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ) 17 ) ) Defendant. 18 ) ) 19 ) ) 20 21 22 On January 14, 2020, Plaintiff Robert Walk filed this action in San Bernardino 23 County Superior Court against Defendant Under Armour, Inc. (Dkt. 1-1 [Complaint, 24 hereinafter “Compl.”].) Plaintiff alleges that on September 24, 2018, he severed the tip 25 of his pinky finder while working as a Maintenance Mechanic for Defendant. (Id. ¶ 10.) 26 According to Plaintiff, he was unfairly blamed for the accident and fired. (Id. ¶¶ 10–13.) 27 Plaintiff asserts six state law causes of action for (1) disability discrimination, (2) failure 1 process, (5) wrongful termination, and (6) unfair business practices. (Id. ¶¶ 23–96.) He 2 seeks compensatory and punitive damages, lost earnings, and fees. (Id. at 13–14.) On 3 March 18, 2020, Defendant removed, invoking diversity jurisdiction. (Dkt. 1 [Notice of 4 Removal, hereinafter “NOR”].) 5 6 A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to a federal district court 7 if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. 8 § 1441. Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over cases that are between diverse 9 parties and involve an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000.

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

(1941). Indeed, “[n]othing is to 13 be more jealously guarded by a court than its jurisdiction.” See United States v. Ceja- 14 Prado,

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

(9th Cir. 18 1992). A defendant’s notice of removal must include a “plausible allegation that the 19 amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” See Dart Cherokee Basin 20 Operating Co., LLC v. Owens,

, 89 (2014). 21 22 Federal courts have a duty to examine their subject matter jurisdiction whether or 23 not the parties raise the issue. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, 24 Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2004) (“[A] district court's duty to establish subject 25 matter jurisdiction is not contingent upon the parties' arguments.”). “The court may— 26 indeed must—remand an action sua sponte if it determines that it lacks subject matter 27 jurisdiction.” GFD, LLC v. Carter,

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012). 1 Defendant has not carried its burden of plausibly alleging that over $75,000 is in 2 controversy. See Dart Cherokee Basin Op. Co., LLC v. Owens,

, 88–89 3 (2015); Gaus,

. In its Notice of Removal, Defendant does not identify 4 any specific facts or allegations relevant to the amount in controversy. Instead, 5 Defendant lists the types of damages Plaintiff seeks and—citing a case from the Fifth 6 Circuit—asserts that “it is facially apparent from the Complaint that the amount in 7 controversy is satisfied.” (NOR ¶¶ 16–17 [citing White v. FCI USA, Inc.,

, 8 674 (5th Cir. 2003)].) The Court disagrees. On its face, the Complaint does not establish 9 that the jurisdictional threshold has been met. It is entirely silent on the amount of 10 damages Plaintiff seeks, and includes no information about Plaintiff’s wages, income, 11 benefits, or medical expenses, or the potential basis for punitive damages. (See generally 12 Compl.) 13 14 Defendant next argues that because juries have awarded more than $75,000 in 15 purportedly “similar” disability discrimination cases, the amount-in-controversy 16 requirement must be satisfied here. (See NOR ¶¶ 18–20.) Defendant lists the damages 17 awarded in these cases, but does not offer any details to explain why they are analogous 18 to the case at hand. (See id.) Nor does Defendant attempt to estimate the damages at 19 issue by identifying Plaintiff’s previous wages or income. (See id.) Without any 20 supporting facts or details, the Court cannot assume that the instant case is, in fact, 21 “similar” to the cited cases. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to 22 carry its burden of plausibly establishing this Court’s removal jurisdiction, which is 23 strictly construed against removal. See Gaus,

. 24 25 Courts in this district have found that defendants who provided significantly more 26 details nevertheless failed to meet their burden of plausibly alleging the amount in 27 controversy. For example, one court found that allegations regarding the plaintiff’s 1 || Merricks-Barragan v. Maidenform, Inc.,

, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2 |}2011). Here, the Defendant has not provided any information about plaintiff’ s 3 ||}compensation. Cf. id.; see also Dupre v. Gen. Motors,

, at *4 (C.D. 4 ||Cal. Aug. 27, 2010) (holding that the amount-in-controversy requirement was not 5 || Satisfied where defendant’s calculations were “based on many assumptions that leave the 6 |}court to speculate as to the value of too many variables’). 7 8 ‘Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of 9 ||removal in the first instance.” Gaus,

. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte 10 || REMANDS this case to San Bernardino County Superior Court. 1 12 13 DATED: March 30, 2020 4d Le 14 □□□ x 15 CORMAC J. CARNEY 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28