CUENNTITREADL S DTIASTTERSIC DTI SOTFR CICATL ICFOOURRNTIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 02:21-CV-02831-RGK (MRWx) Date July 7, 2021 Title WILLIE MEADOWS v. WAL-MART ASSOC. INC.

Present: The R. GARY KLAUSNER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Honorable Sharon L. Williams (not present) Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order Remanding Action to State Court On February 26, 2021, Willie Meadows (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. (“Defendant”) alleging common law and state statutory claims based on disability discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and wrongful termination. On April 1, 2021, Defendant removed the action to this Court alleging jurisdiction on the grounds of diversity of citizenship. Upon review of Defendant’s Notice of Removal, the Court hereby remands the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Pursuant to

, district courts shall have original jurisdiction over any civil action in which the parties are citizens of different states and the action involved an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000. After a plaintiff files a case in state court, the defendant attempting to remove the case to federal court bears the burden of proving the amount in controversy requirement has been met. Lowdermilk v. United States Bank Nat’l Ass’n,

(9th Cir. 2007). If the complaint does not allege that the amount in controversy has been met, the removing defendant must plausibly allege in its notice of removal that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens,

(2014). Whether or not the plaintiff challenges these allegations, a court may still insist that the jurisdictional requirement has been established by a preponderance of the evidence. Guas v. Miles, Inc.,

, 566–67 (9th Cir. 1992). In his complaint, Plaintiff seeks damages for lost wages, loss of employment related opportunities, general and special damages, and damages for emotional distress and attorneys’ fees. In support of its removal, Defendant calculates that based on Plaintiff’s hourly rate, his back pay to date is $18,690. Defendant then states that including all other requested damages, including front pay, emotional distress, and punitive damages, the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional CUENNTITREADL S DTIASTTERSIC DTI SOTFR CICATL ICFOOURRNTIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 02:21-CV-02831-RGK (MRWx) Date July 7, 2021 Title WILLIE MEADOWS v. WAL-MART ASSOC. INC. Defendant fails to plausibly allege that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. With $18,690 as a starting point, and vague, speculative assertions regarding front pay, emotional distress, and punitive damages, the Court finds that Defendant fails to meet its burden on removal. In light of the foregoing, the action is hereby remanded to state court for all further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED.

: Initials of Preparer