UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ENRIQUE ALEJANDRO CV 20-6234 DSF (JPRx) SANCHEZ-ESTRADA, Plaintiff, Order DENYING Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 11) v.

KIEWIT POWER CONSTRUCTORS, CO., Defendant.

Defendant Kiewit Power Constructors, Co. removed this case on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. There is no dispute that the parties are diverse, but Plaintiff Enrique Alejandro Sanchez-Estrada argues that Defendant has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The Court deems this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. The hearing set for September 14, 2020, is removed from the Court’s calendar. The Court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. “The amount in controversy is simply an estimate of the total amount in dispute, not a prospective assessment of defendant’s liability.” Lewis v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2010). As in this case, “when the defendant relies on a chain of reasoning that includes assumptions to satisfy its burden of proof, the chain of reasoning and its underlying assumptions must be reasonable ones.” LaCross v. Knight Transp. Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2015). In short, this is a disability discrimination case where Plaintiff claims he was injured at work and then terminated rather than having his injury-related disability accommodated. In its opposition to the motion to remand, Defendant relies on Plaintiff's demand for pain and suffering damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees to show the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The Court finds the evidence provided by Defendant of amounts awarded in other disability discrimination/accommodation cases is sufficient to meet its burden. Defendant is not required to show that Plaintiff is actually likely to recover more than $75,000. It is only required to show that the total amount in dispute — that is, the amount that Plaintiff could reasonably be thought to be seeking — exceeds $75,000. That burden is easily met here. The motion to remand is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: September 2, 2020 hoe A. Jerctew Dale S. Fischer United States District Judge