CUENNTITREADL S DTIASTTERSIC DTI SOTFR CICATL ICFOOURRNTIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:23-cv-02643-RGK (RAOx) Date April 14, 2023 Title SYLVIA GARCIA v. YETI COOLERS, LLC

Present: The R. GARY KLAUSNER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Honorable Joseph Remigio (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 March 2, 2023, Sylvia Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in state court against Yeti Coolers, LLC (“Defendant”) alleging state statutory claims for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”). On April 7, 2023, Defendant removed the action to federal court on the ground of diversity jurisdiction. 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). In her complaint, Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, statutory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. In support of its removal, Defendant summarily states that the amount in controversy requirement is met because “Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for alleged ‘numerous and discreet violations’ of the California Penal Code, as well as punitive damages, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs.” (Notice of Removal, 4:7-10.) Under CIPA, a plaintiff may be awarded $5,000 per violation. With $5,000 as a starting point, and only a vague allegation of “numerous and discreet violations,” Defendant’s claim that the action meets the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement is speculative, at best. Moreover, Defendant’s inclusion of attorneys’ fees and punitive damages is similarly speculative. CUENNTITREADL S DTIASTTERSIC DTI SOTFR CICATL ICFOOURRNTIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:23-cv-02643-RGK (RAOx) Date April 14, 2023 Title SYLVIA GARCIA v. YETI COOLERS, LLC alleging that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional requirement. In light of the foregoing, the action is hereby remanded to state court for all further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

: Initials of Preparer JRE/vc