O 1

2 3 4 5 6 7

8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California

10

11 AMBER THAYER, an individual Case № 2:20-CV-10350-ODW (MRWx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

13 v. REMAND [9]

14 SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC, a Delaware corporation; et 15 al.,

16 Defendants. 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 Plaintiff Amber Thayer moves to remand this action for lack of diversity 20 jurisdiction. (Mot. to Remand (“Motion” or “Mot.”) 1, ECF No. 9.) Thayer contends 21 that Defendant Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. (“Securitas”) failed to meet its 22 burden to establish diversity jurisdiction under

(a) because the 23 amount in controversy is less than the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000. (Id.) For 24 the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Thayer’s Motion1. 25 26 27

28 1 Having carefully considered the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. 1 II. BACKGROUND 2 On September 1, 2017, Securitas hired Thayer to work as a Human Resources 3 Specialist/Administrator. (Notice of Removal (“NOR”), Ex. A (“Complaint” or 4 “Compl.”) ¶ 19, ECF No. 1-1.) On July 16, 2019, Securitas terminated Thayer from 5 the company. (Id.) Thayer claims that Securitas terminated her employment because 6 she requested family and medical leave. (Id. ¶ 28.) 7 On August 14, 2020, Thayer filed a Complaint in the Los Angeles County 8 Superior Court. (NOR ¶ 3; see generally Compl.) In the Complaint, Thayer alleges 9 thirteen causes of action against Securitas regarding her employment and termination, 10 including six causes of action pursuant to the Fair Employment and Housing Act 11 (“FEHA”). (Compl. ¶¶ 37–148.) On November 12, 2020, Securitas removed this 12 action to this Court on the basis of alleged diversity jurisdiction. (NOR ¶ 1.) Now 13 Thayer moves to remand this action, challenging Securitas’s assertion that the amount 14 in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. (See generally Mot.) 15 III. LEGAL STANDARD 16 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject-matter 17 jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. U.S. 18 Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

, 19 377 (1994). A suit filed in a state court may be removed to federal court if the federal 20 court would have had original jurisdiction over the suit.

(a). Federal 21 courts have original jurisdiction where an action presents a federal question under 22

, or diversity of citizenship under

. Accordingly, a 23 defendant may remove a case from state court to federal court pursuant to the federal 24 removal statute,

, on the basis of federal question or diversity 25 jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship among 26 the adverse parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, exclusive of 27 interest and costs.

(a). 28 1 Courts strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction, and 2 “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal 3 in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). The 4 party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.

5 IV. DISCUSSION 6 Thayer does not dispute that complete diversity exists, but she contends that this 7 case must be remanded because: (1) Securitas did not submit summary-judgment-type 8 evidence with its Notice of Removal to support its amount in controversy allegation; 9 and (2) Securitas’s calculations fail to demonstrate that Thayer’s damages exceed the 10 $75,000 threshold. (See generally Mot.) In opposition, Securitas contends that it has 11 satisfied its burden to demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 12 (Opp’n to Mot. 1–10, ECF. No. 12.) Securitas is correct. 13 First, the Court addresses Thayer’s contention that Securitas’s removal was 14 deficient. The law is clear on a defendant’s burden of proof on removal: “[A] 15 defendant’s notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount 16 in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating 17 Co., LLC v. Owens,

, 89 (2014). Summary-judgment-type evidence is 18 required only when the defendant’s allegation is questioned by the court or challenged 19 by the plaintiff.

. Here, Securitas alleged in its Notice of Removal that based 20 on Thayer’s allegations concerning her wages and a reasonable estimate of this case 21 proceeding to trial one year from removal, she could claim approximately $76,731.20 22 in lost wages alone. (See NOR ¶ 22.) This is sufficient for purposes of the removal 23 petition. See, e.g., Calhoun v. Consol. Disposal Serv., LLC, No. CV 19-2315-MWF 24 (MRWx),

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 18, 2019) (“Defendants [are] not 25 required to submit summary-judgment-type evidence in the Notice of Removal to 26 prove up the amount in controversy.”). 27 Second, the Court addresses Thayer’s contention that Securitas’s calculations 28 concerning the amount in controversy are incorrect. (Mot. 5–6.) The Ninth Circuit 1 has held that “the amount in controversy is not limited to damages incurred prior to 2 removal” but “includes all relief claimed at the time of removal to which the plaintiff 3 would be entitled if she prevails.” Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.,

, 4 414 (9th Cir. 2018). Courts separate lost wages into two categories: “past wages— 5 i.e., lost wages between the date of Plaintiff’s termination and the date of removal— 6 and future wages—i.e., lost wages between the date of removal and trial.” Fisher v. 7 HNTB Corp., No. 2:18-CV-08173-AB-MRW,

, at *5 n.7 (C.D. Cal. 8 Dec. 3, 2018). “If a plaintiff claims at the time of removal that her termination caused 9 her to lose future wages . . . then there is no question that future wages are ‘at stake’ in 10 the litigation.” Chavez,

. 11 Here, Thayer alleges that she “is entitled to past and future lost wages.” 12 (Compl. ¶ 34.) Consequently, there is no question that Thayer’s future wages are at 13 stake. See Chavez,

. Thayer’s lost wages then, include all wages from 14 her date of termination in July 16, 2019, until the date set for trial, March 8, 2022 15 (approximately thirty-one months). (Compl. ¶ 27; Scheduling Order, ECF No. 17.) 16 In the Complaint, Thayer alleges that her “hourly wage was $15.85” and that 17 she worked a “fixed schedule . . . five days per week, Monday through Friday, for 18 approximately eight hours per day.” (Compl. ¶ 20.) Based on Thayer’s allegations, 19 her monthly wage was approximately $2,536.2 Multiplying Thayer’s monthly wage 20 of $2,536 by thirty-one months results in a total of $78,616 for past and future lost 21 wages. Thus, Thayer’s claimed lost wages alone satisfy the amount in controversy, as 22 they exceed $75,000. See

(a). 23 Based on the foregoing, the Court need not consider Thayer’s other claimed 24 damages to find the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction. Therefore, the 25 Court has subject matter jurisdiction and DENIES Thayer’s motion. Additionally, 26 Thayer’s request for attorney’s fees is DENIED as moot. 27

28 2 The Court bases its calculation on Thayer’s allegations that she worked five days per week, at approximately eight hours per day: ($15.85 x 8 x 5 x 4 = $2,536 per month). (See Compl. ¶ 20.) 1 Vv. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Thayer’s Motion to 3 || Remand and DENIES as moot Thayer’s request for fees and costs. (ECF No. 9.) 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 April 6, 2021 ome 8

10 OTIS D. HT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28