Skyleur Young v. Manuel Caldera
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