Case 2:22-cv-04498-AB-KS Document 29 Filed 08/18/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:254

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WHOLERX INC., dba PORTER Case No. 2:22-cv-04498-AB(KSx) RANCH PHARMACY, a California 11 Corporation, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 12 Plaintiff, MOTION FOR REMAND

13 vs.

14 CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; CARDINAL HEALTH 110, LLC; 15 CARDINAL HEALTH 112, LLC; LEADER DRUG STORES, INC. DBA 16 LEADERNET; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 17 18 Defendants. 19 The Court has considered all of the papers filed in connection with Plaintiff 20 WHOLERX INC., dba PORTER RANCH PHARMACY’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for 21 Remand (“Motion,” Dkt. No. 21). The Motion is DENIED. 22 Plaintiff’s sole argument is that Defendants CARDINAL HEALTH, INC., et al. 23 (“Defendants”) failed to file with their Notice of Removal (“NOR,” Dkt. No. 1) 24 evidence supporting their allegations regarding the amount in controversy. But “ ‘a 25 defendant’s notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount 26 in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold,’ . . . ‘[e]vidence establishing the 27 amount is required’” when “defendant’s assertion of the amount in controversy is 28 1. Case 2:22-cv-04498-AB-KS Document 29 Filed 08/18/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:255

1 contested by plaintiff[].” Ibarra v. Manheim Investments, Inc.,

, 1197 2 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company, LLC v. Owens, 3

(2014). If the plaintiff challenges removal by filing a motion for 4 remand, “both sides submit proof and the court decides, by a preponderance of the 5 evidence, whether the amount-in-controversy has been satisfied.” Dart Cherokee, 125 6 S. Ct. at 554. 7 Here, Defendants allege in their NOR that from “May 2021 through May 2022, 8 Plaintiff purchased from Cardinal Health an average of $47,915 of controlled 9 scheduled drugs per month.” NOR ¶ 21. In response to Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants 10 filed with their opposition the Declaration of Chris Clayton, Senior Advisor with 11 Defendants’ Legal eDiscovery Team. See Clayton Decl. (Dkt. No. 24-1). This 12 declaration adequately supports Defendants’ allegation as to Plaintiff’s average 13 monthly purchases. Plaintiff filed no contrary evidence, and filed only objections that 14 the Court hereby OVERRULES. Defendants further calculate that if Plaintiff’s 15 average purchases of controlled scheduled drugs remained the same average of 16 $47,915 of per month, it would purchase at least $600,000 in controlled substances 17 under the remainder of the contract, which extends until August 31, 2023. See Opp’n 18 5:12-15. This amount exceeds the $75,000 amount in controversy. Even assuming, 19 without deciding, that extent the amount in controversy should be determined by 20 Plaintiff’s profits from those sales, Defendant has also pointed to evidence showing 21 that profit margins for independent pharmacies like Plaintiff have averaged between 22 17% and 21% in recent years. See Opp’n fn. 2. The low end of that range—17% in 23 gross profit margins—amounts to $102,000 in profits on the $600,000 of projected 24 purchases remaining on the contract. This too surpasses the amount in controversy. 25 The Court further finds that Defendants’ estimate of the amount in controversy is 26 based on reasonable assumptions. See Academy of Country Music v. Continental 27 Casualty Company,

(9th Cir. 2021) (“when a defendant's 28 allegations of removal jurisdiction are challenged, the defendant’s showing on the 2. Case 2:22-cv-04498-AB-KS Document 29 Filed 08/18/22 Page 3of3 Page ID #:256

1 | amount in controversy may rely on reasonable assumptions”). 2 Based on the foregoing unchallenged evidence, the Court finds that Defendants 3 | have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy 4 | exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional minimum. Given the foregoing, the Court need not 5 | address how much the other relief Plaintiff seeks—for example, attorneys’ fees, 6 | punitive damages, injunctive relief—contributes to the amount in controversy. 7 The hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Remand is VACATED and the Motion is 8 | DENIED. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. : 12 | Dated: August 18, 2022 13 HONORABLE ANDRE BIROTTE JR. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3.