1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH YELLEN, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-08844-FLA (RAOx)

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER REMANDING ACTION FOR 13 v. LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 14 KELAILA RUTH LOEWEN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 RULING 19 On September 29, 2021, Plaintiffs Joseph Yellen, Christy Yellen, and Luke 20 Yellen (“Plaintiffs”) initiated this action against Defendant Kelaila Ruth Loewen 21 (“Defendant”) and DOES 1 to 50 in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Dkt. 1-1 22 (“Compl.”). The Complaint asserts a state law cause of action relating to personal 23 injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident. Id. 24 On December 6, 2022, Defendant removed the action to this court based on 25 alleged diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. 1 (“NoR”). In its Notice of Removal, Defendant 26 alleges the court has subject matter jurisdiction under

because the 27 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Id at 2. Defendant relies on Plaintiffs’ 28 Statement of Damages served on November 7, 2022, seeking $775,744.27.

. 1 On August 4, 2023, the court ordered the parties to show cause why the action 2 should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to an insufficient 3 amount in controversy. Dkt. 40. Only Defendant filed a response. Dkt. 41 (“Def. 4 Resp.”), 45 (“Def. Supp. Resp.”). 5 Having reviewed the Notice of Removal and Defendant’s response to this 6 court’s Order to Show Cause, and for the following reasons, the court finds Defendant 7 fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction and accordingly REMANDS this action to 8 the Los Angeles County Superior Court. 9 DISCUSSION 10 Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power 11 authorized by the Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 12 Am.,

(1994); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. District courts are 13 presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the 14 record. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno,

, 342 n. 3 (2006). 15 Additionally, federal courts have an obligation to examine jurisdiction sua sponte 16 before proceeding to the merits of a case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526

, 583 (1999). 18 Federal courts have jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law or 19 where each plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship and the 20 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. 21 §§ 1331, 1332(a). Thus, a notice removing an action from state court to federal court 22 must include “a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the 23 jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574

(2014). Where “the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the 25 defendant’s allegation” concerning the amount in controversy, “both sides [shall] 26 submit proof,” and the court may then decide whether the defendant has proven the 27 amount in controversy “by a preponderance of the evidence.”

at 88–89. “Federal 28 jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first 1 instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). It is Defendant’s 2 burden as the removing party to justify this court’s exercise of jurisdiction.

. 3 Here, the amount of damages Plaintiffs seek cannot be determined from the 4 Complaint, as it does not set forth a specific amount. See generally Compl. 5 Defendant, however, contends Plaintiffs served a Statement of Damages indicating 6 Plaintiffs are seeking $775,744.27 in general and special damages. NoR at 5; Def. 7 Resp. at 2. A statement of damages “is relevant evidence of the amount in 8 controversy if it appears to reflect a reasonable estimate of the plaintiff’s claim.” 9 Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2002). “A plaintiff’s damage 10 estimate will not establish the amount in controversy, however, if it appears to be only 11 a bold optimistic prediction.” Romsa v. Ikea U.S. West, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-05552- 12 MMM (JEMx),

, *2 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (internal quotation marks 13 omitted). 14 It is clear the $775,744.27 in damages set forth in the Statement of Damages is 15 simply a “bold optimistic prediction” and is not a reasonable estimate of Plaintiffs’ 16 claims. See

(“The leap from $4,597.77 in medical expenses incurred to 17 [defendant’s] assertion that [plaintiff’s son] has suffered damages in excess of $75,000 18 because he cries a lot and wakes up several times a night is difficult to credit. 19 [Defendant] cites no facts that indicate a damages award anywhere near $75,000—let 20 alone $1,000,000—is likely.”). Significantly, the Statement of Damages cites no facts 21 to explain how Plaintiffs determined this amount. See NoR at 5; Def. Resp. at 2; 22 Romsa,

, at *2 (noting plaintiff’s statement of damages did not 23 explain how he arrived at his figures); Schroeder v. Petsmart, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv- 24 01561-FMO (AGRx),

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 2019) (same); Mata v. 25 Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-01758-FMO (AFMx),

, 26 at *2 (C.D. Cal. 2022) (same); see also Owens v. Westwood College Inc.,

4083624, at *4 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (finding plaintiff’s settlement demand letters could 28 not be used to establish the amount in controversy requirement because they | | “demand[ed] an arbitrary settlement figure, with no showing of how [the] figure was 2 | calculated”). 3 Defendant further argues that, via discovery, Plaintiffs produced medical 4 || records “specify[ing] total [medical] billings of $109,406.63.” Def. Supp. Resp. at 2. 5 | Defendant provides no evidence to substantiate this assertion, despite the court’s 6 | notice of a “two-pronged inquiry into the facial and factual sufficiency of Defendant’s 7 | demonstration of jurisdiction.” See Dkt. 40 at 3. Instead, Defendant asks the court to 8 | simply accept her statement regarding the medical records as true. 9 Given that any doubt regarding the existence of subject matter jurisdiction must 10 | be resolved in favor of remanding the action to state court, see Gaus,

, 11 | the court is not persuaded, under the circumstances here, that Defendant has met her 12 | burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy 13 | meets the jurisdictional threshold. Therefore, there is no basis for diversity 14 | jurisdiction. See

. 15 CONCLUSION 16 For the foregoing reasons, the court REMANDS the action to the Los Angeles 17 | County Superior Court, Case No. 21STCV35797. All dates and deadlines in this 18 | court are VACATED. The clerk of the court shall close the action administratively. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 | Dated: October 3, 2023 23 S FERNANDO T. AENLLE-ROCHA 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28