UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. SA CV 21-01185-DOC-JDE Date: October 14, 2021

Title: MADELAINE ESQUIBEL V. WALGREEN CO. ET AL

PRESENT:

THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE

T. Steele Not Present Courtroom Clerk Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT: None Present None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT

Having considered the parties’ supplemental briefing on remand, the Court hereby REMANDS this case to the Orange County Superior Court.

I. Background A. Facts The following facts are drawn from Plaintiff Laura Vazquez Garcia’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint (“Compl.”) (Dkt. 1-1). This action concerns Plaintiff’s employment with Walgreen Co. (“Defendant”). Compl. ¶ 1. Plaintiff alleges she was discriminated against by the Defendant on the basis of her pregnancy and association with her disabled daughter. Id. ¶ 2. She further alleges that the Defendant retaliated against her when she requested accommodations and wrongfully terminated her. Id. ¶ 3-6.

B. Procedural History Plaintiff originally filed suit in the Orange County Superior Court, on June 8, 2021. See generally Compl. On July 9, Defendant removed the action to this Court, CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. SA CV 21-01185-DOC-JDE Date: October 14, 2021 Page 2

asserting diversity jurisdiction. Notice of Removal (Dkt. 1). Both parties filed supplemental briefing on the amount in controversy (Dkts. 15 and 17).

II. Legal Standard “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”

(c). Removal of a case from state court to federal court is governed by

, which provides in relevant part that “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed . . . to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.”

. This statute “is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction,” and the party seeking removal “bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.” Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest.,

, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988) (emphasis added) (citations omitted). Federal diversity jurisdiction requires that the parties be citizens of different states and that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000.

(a). For diversity jurisdiction purposes, a corporation is “deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business.”

(c)(1). The presence of any single plaintiff from the same state as any single defendant destroys “complete diversity” and strips the federal courts of original jurisdiction over the matter. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc.,

(2005).

Generally, a removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy satisfies the jurisdictional threshold. Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp.,

(9th Cir. 2008). If the complaint affirmatively alleges an amount in controversy greater than $75,000, the jurisdictional requirement is “presumptively satisfied.”

A plaintiff who then tries to defeat removal must prove to a “legal certainty” that a recovery of more than $75,000 is impossible. St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co.,

(1938); Crum v. Circus Enters.,

(9th Cir. 2000). This framework applies equally to situations where the complaint leaves the amount in controversy unclear or ambiguous. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992); Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 1996). CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. SA CV 21-01185-DOC-JDE Date: October 14, 2021 Page 3

A removing defendant “may not meet [its] burden by simply reciting some ‘magical incantation’ to the effect that ‘the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of [$75,000],’ but instead, must set forth in the removal petition the underlying facts supporting its assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds [$75,000].” Richmond v. Allstate Ins. Co.,

(S.D. Cal. 1995) (quoting Gaus,

). If the plaintiff has not clearly or unambiguously alleged $75,000 in its complaint or has affirmatively alleged an amount less than $75,000 in its complaint, the burden lies with the defendant to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional minimum is satisfied. Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka,

(9th Cir. 2010); Guglielmino,

.

While the defendant must “set forth the underlying facts supporting its assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory minimum,” the standard is not so taxing so as to require the defendant to “research, state, and prove the plaintiff’s claims for damages.” Coleman v. Estes Express Lines, Inc.,

(C.D. Cal. 2010) (emphases added). In short, the defendant must show that it is “more likely than not” that the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory minimum.

Summary judgment-type evidence may be used to substantiate this showing. Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co.,

, 1090–91 (9th Cir. 2003); Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 1997). For example, defendants may make mathematical calculations using reasonable averages of hourly, monthly, and annual incomes of comparable employees when assessing the amount in controversy in a wrongful termination suit. Coleman, 730 F. Supp. 2d. at 1148–49.

If the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, any action it takes is ultra vires and void. See Gonzalez v. Crosby,

(2005); Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t,

, 101–02 (1998). The lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by either the parties or the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). If subject matter jurisdiction is found to be lacking, the court must dismiss the action,

or remand pursuant to

(c). A Court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte. See Snell v. Cleveland, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2002).

III. Discussion Defendant argues that this Court has diversity jurisdiction in this action. Notice of Removal ¶ 8. The Court disagrees.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s actual damages—coupled with the civil penalties, emotional distress damages, and attorneys’ fees—Plaintiffs seek, is greater than $75,000. CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. SA CV 21-01185-DOC-JDE Date: October 14, 2021 Page 4

See Defendant’s Brief Regarding Amount in Controversy (“Defendant’s Brief”) (Dkt. 15). Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s lost wage damages are her annual salary, which was approximately $35,360. Id. at 3. Defendant further alleges that the awarded damages exceed $75,000 based on emotional distress damages, punitive damages, civil penalties, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. Id. at 3-4.

The Court will not include speculative civil penalties, emotional damages, or attorneys’ fees to meet the amount in controversy requirement. See Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia,

(9th Cir. 1998) (“We hold that where an underlying statute authorizes an award of attorneys’ fees, either with mandatory or discretionary language, such fees may be included in the amount in controversy.”) (emphasis added). Moreover, the Defendant has not met its burden proving such damages-- neither Defendant’s Notice of Removal nor its supplemental brief includes any calculations or estimations of the amount in controversy in this case, other than a rough estimate of Plaintiff’s annual earnings of $35, 360. As such, the Court finds that Defendant has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Thus, the Court finds that it lacks diversity jurisdiction over this matter.

IV. Disposition For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby REMANDS this case to the Orange County Superior Court.

The Clerk shall serve this minute order on the parties.

MINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk: ts CIVIL-GEN