1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 YONGYAN CAO, Case No. 22-cv-05301-TLT

8 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING CASE v. 9 Re: ECF No. 1 10 AUTEL US INC., Defendant. 11

12 13 For the reasons noted below, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to state court for 14 lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 15 I. BACKGROUND 16 On August 4, 2022, Plaintiff Yongyan Cao filed a complaint in the San Mateo Superior 17 Court against Defendant Autel US Inc. (“Autel”). Mr. Cao asserted state law claims related to 18 breach of contract, labor code violations and California’s Unfair Competition Law. ECF No. 4. 19 The complaint did not contain a specific amount in controversy. See ECF No. 4. 20 On September 16, 2022, Autel removed this action based on diversity jurisdiction. ECF 21 No. 1. In its notice of removal, Autel asserted that there was diversity jurisdiction because (1) 22 there was complete diversity between the parties and (2) the amount in controversy was satisfied 23 based on the allegations of the complaint. Id. The complaint, however, was silent as to specific 24 damages, and on its face did not satisfy the minimum amount in controversy requirement. See 25 ECF No. 4. 26 Consequently, the Court ordered Autel to show cause as to why this case should not be 27 remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 13. Autel asserted damages would be 1 bonus, statutory penalties, and its own “calculations.” Id. 2 On August 24, 2023, the parties met with the Court for a final pretrial conference. The 3 parties agreed that the estimated relief associated with this case was approximately $73,173. See 4 ECF Nos. 34, 37. The Court noted that Mr. Cao’s estimated relief fell just below the $75,000 5 threshold required to satisfy diversity jurisdiction and invited the parties to share any calculations 6 or concerns with the Court. 7 Consequently, on August 29, 2023, the Court issued an order inviting Mr. Cao to show 8 cause as to why the court should not remand the matter to state court. ECF No. 39. Mr. Cao 9 responded on August 30, 2023 that he had not alleged subject matter jurisdiction in his complaint 10 and the burden to prove jurisdiction lay with Autel, the party who had remanded the case from 11 state court. ECF No. 40. Autel did not respond and appears to concede this point through silence. 12 II. LEGAL STANDARD 13 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 14 Am.,

(1994). “Subject matter jurisdiction ‘can never be forfeited or waived’ 15 and federal courts have a continuing ‘independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter 16 jurisdiction exists.’” Leeson v. Transamerica Disability Income Plan,

, n.12 17 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal citations omitted). “The objection that a federal court lacks subject- 18 matter jurisdiction, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(b)(1), may be raised by a party, or by a court on its 19 own initiative, at any stage in the litigation, even after trial and the entry of judgment.” Arbaugh 20 v. Y&H Corp.,

(2006). 21 The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Provincial 22 Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2009). Where the 23 complaint does not specify the amount in controversy and it is unclear whether the plaintiff is 24 seeking more than the jurisdictional minimum, “the defendant bears the burden of actually proving 25 the facts to support jurisdiction, including the jurisdictional amount” by a preponderance of the 26 evidence. Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). “The removal statute is 27 strictly construed, and any doubt about the right of removal requires resolution in favor of 1 § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject 2 matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”). 3 III. DISCUSSION 4 Autel asserts there is diversity jurisdiction as the basis for removal. ECF No. 1. While 5 Autel agrees that “Plaintiff’s complaint is silent as to damages sought,” Autel believes the 6 damages will be greater than $75,000 because of (1) allegations in the complaint, (2) Mr. Cao’s 7 unpaid bonus, (3) statutory penalties, and (4) its own “calculations.” ECF No. 14. As 8 documentary support, Autel attached only a copy of Mr. Cao’s offer letter, which listed potential 9 annual bonuses, ranging from $22,000 to $42,000. Id., Ex. A. Autel did not include its 10 calculations in its response to show cause. Id. 11 Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of the parties and an amount in 12 controversy above $75,000.

. Here, only the amount in controversy is disputed, 13 because the complaint does not set forth a specific amount. See Gaus,

. And 14 because Autel removed the case to federal court, it has the burden to prove by a preponderance of 15 the evidence that the amount in controversy has been satisfied. See

. 16 The Court finds that Autel has failed to make this showing. Autel relies on conclusory 17 allegations that Mr. Cao’s allegations or its own “calculations,” suggest the amount in controversy 18 will be met. See ECF No. 14. But this is not sufficient under the preponderance standard, 19 especially where Autel failed to even include calculations it relies on in its response to the Court. 20 See Miranda v. Weaver Popcorn Co., No. EDCV10-632 PARZX,

, at *2 (C.D. 21 Cal. May 12, 2010) (finding remand appropriate where defendant failed to provide supporting 22 evidence or facts). 23 At best, the estimated amount in controversy for this case is $73,173 based on Mr. Cao’s 24 alleged bonus and statutory penalties. At the pretrial conference, the parties confirmed the 25 maximum bonus at issue is $32,000. See ECF Nos. 34, 37. Mr. Cao also seeks waiting time 26 penalties that are estimated at $26,539.1 See ECF No. 34. In addition, estimating attorneys’ fees 27 1 at 25 percent of total costs is around $14,634. In sum, the Court estimates the total maximum 2 amount in controversy is only $73,173, which falls below the jurisdictional threshold. Further, at 3 the pretrial conference, the Court raised concerns that subject matter jurisdiction was not satisfied 4 and asked the parties to share any calculations or additional information. Autel did not provide 5 any additional arguments or evidence for its position. 6 Accordingly, the Court concludes that Autel has not met its burden to prove, by a 7 || preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy satisfies the jurisdictional 8 threshold. 9 || IV. CONCLUSION 10 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Autel has failed to establish subject matter 11 || jurisdiction and remands the case to state court. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 13 || Dated: 8/31/2023 14 15 fi = 16 United States District Judge 17

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2g || maximum penalty period, results in a waiting time penalty of ~$26,539. See ECF No. 34,

(a).