Skyleur Young v. Manuel Caldera

United States District Court for the Central District of California

Skyleur Young v. Manuel Caldera

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Gnited States District Court 9 Central District of California 10 Western Dibision 11 12 SKYLEUR YOUNG, et al., EDCV 19-02204 TJH (SPx) 13 Plaintiffs , 14 Vv. 15 COOL STORAGE OF LAS VEGAS, et al., Remand Order 16 Defendants. 17 18 This case stems from a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiffs were the driver and 19 || passengers of a vehicle parked on the shoulder of the Interstate 15 Freeway. Defendant 20 || Manuel Caldera was driving a truck owned by Defendant Transco Leasing Co., Inc. 21 || [“Transco] and leased to Caldera’s employer, Defendant Cool Storage of Las Vegas, 22 || LLC. [“Cool Storage”]. This case was filed in the San Bernardino Superior Court and, 23 || then, removed by Transco and Cool Storage asserting diversity jurisdiction. 24 In the Notice of Removal, Defendants contend that each Plaintiff’s amount in 25 || controversy exceeded $75,000.00. However, each Plaintiff's Statement of Damages 26 || attached to the removed complaint itemized each of their damages. The sum of the 27 || itemized damages is exactly $75,000.00 for each Plaintiff. 28 For the Court to have diversity jurisdiction, here, each Plaintiff's amount in

Order — Page 1 of 2

1 | controversy must exceed $75,000.00.

28 U.S.C. §§ 1332

(a) and 1441. Defendants, 2 || as the removing parties, had the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the 3 || evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.00 for each Plaintiff. 4 || Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co.,

102 F.3d 398, 404

(9th Cir. 1996). The claims 5 | and damages of each Plaintiff, here, cannot be aggregated because those claims and 6 || damages are not based on a common undivided claim or interest. See Pinel v. Pinel, 7 |

240 U.S. 594, 596

(1916). Consequently, Defendants failed to meet their burden to 8 || establish the existence of diversity jurisdiction. See Sanchez. 9 “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of 10 || removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles,

980 F.2d 564, 566

(9th Cir. 1992). 11 Accordingly, 12 It is Ordered that this case be, and hereby is, Remanded, 13 14 || Date: June 2, 2020 — 15 “cag C, Ve Clow, bu 16 erty J. Hatter, Fr. 7 Senior United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Order — Page 2 of 2

Reference

Status
Unknown