1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VLADIMIR ROYTER, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-06484-FLA (PVCx)

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER REMANDING ACTION FOR 13 v. LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 14 COSTCO WHOLESALE 15 CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. 16

17 18 RULING 19 On June 4, 2024, Plaintiffs Vladimir Royter (“Mr. Royter”) and Larisa Royter 20 (“Plaintiffs”) initiated this action against Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation 21 (“Defendant”) and DOES 1 through 50 in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. 22 Dkt. 1-1 (“Compl.”) at 4.1 Plaintiffs assert state-law claims for general negligence, 23 premises liability, and loss of consortium, arising from Mr. Royter’s visit to 24 Defendant’s store in Burbank, California, where a box allegedly fell and struck his 25 arm. Id. 26 On August 1, 2024, Defendant removed the action to this court based on alleged 27

28 1 The court cites the page numbers inserted by the CM/ECF system. 1 diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. 1. In its notice of removal, Defendant alleges the court has 2 subject matter jurisdiction under

because the amount in controversy 3 exceeds $75,000.

. Defendant relies on Plaintiff’s Statement of Damages, 4 seeking over $10 million.

5 On September 17, 2024, the court ordered the parties to show cause why the 6 action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to an 7 insufficient amount in controversy. Dkt. 12. Only Defendant filed a response. Dkt. 8 18. 9 Having reviewed the Notice of Removal and Defendant’s response to this 10 court’s Order to Show Cause, and for the following reasons, the court finds Defendant 11 fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction and accordingly REMANDS this action to 12 the Los Angeles County Superior Court. 13 DISCUSSION 14 Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power 15 authorized by the Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 16 Am.,

(1994); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. District courts are 17 presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the 18 record. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno,

, 342 n. 3 (2006). 19 Additionally, federal courts have an obligation to examine jurisdiction sua sponte 20 before proceeding to the merits of a case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526

(1999). 22 Federal courts have jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law or 23 where each plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship and the 24 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. 25 §§ 1331, 1332(a). Thus, a notice removing an action from state court to federal court 26 must include “a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the 27 jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574

(2014). Where “the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the 1 defendant’s allegation” concerning the amount in controversy, “both sides [shall] 2 submit proof,” and the court may then decide whether the defendant has proven the 3 amount in controversy “by a preponderance of the evidence.”

at 88–89. “Federal 4 jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first 5 instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). It is Defendant’s 6 burden as the removing party to justify this court’s exercise of jurisdiction.

. 7 Here, Defendant relies on Plaintiffs’ Statement of Damages, Dkt. 18-1, wherein 8 Plaintiffs’ seek: $3 million for pain, suffering, and inconvenience; $1 million for loss 9 of consortium; $35,823.05 for medical expenses to date; $150,000 for future medical 10 expenses; $1 million for loss of earnings; and $5 million for loss of future earning 11 capacity. A statement of damages “is relevant evidence of the amount in controversy 12 if it appears to reflect a reasonable estimate of the plaintiff’s claim.” Cohn v. 13 Petsmart, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2002). “A plaintiff’s damage estimate will 14 not establish the amount in controversy, however, if it appears to be only a bold 15 optimistic prediction.” Romsa v. Ikea U.S. W., Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-05552-MMM 16 (JEMx),

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2014) (internal quotation marks 17 omitted). 18 While the $35,823.05 in medical expenses appears to be in controversy, it is 19 clear the remaining approximately $10 million in damages is simply a “bold 20 optimistic prediction” and not a reasonable estimate of Plaintiffs’ claims. See

(“The leap from $4,597.77 in medical expenses incurred to [defendant’s] assertion 22 that [plaintiff’s son] has suffered damages in excess of $75,000 because he cries a lot 23 and wakes up several times a night is difficult to credit. [Defendant] cites no facts that 24 indicate a damages award anywhere near $75,000 – let alone $1,000,000 – is likely.”). 25 Significantly, the Statement of Damages cites no facts to explain how Plaintiffs 26 determined these amounts. Dkt. 18-1; see also Romsa,

, at *2 27 (remanding action where Plaintiff’s statement of damages did not explain how he 28 arrived at the damages estimated); Schroeder v. Petsmart, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv- 1 | 01561-FMO (AGRx),

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2019) (same); 2 | Mata v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-01758-FMO (AFMx),

| 3586206, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2022) (same); see also Owens v. Westwood Coll. 4 | Inc.,

, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2013) (finding plaintiff's 5 || settlement demand letters could not be used to establish the amount in controversy 6 | requirement because they “demand[ed] an arbitrary settlement figure, with no 7 | showing of how [the] figure was calculated”). Defendant further relies on statements 8 | by Plaintiffs’ counsel, stating damages “far exceed $75,000.” Dkt. 18 at 2. However, 9 | Defendant again provides no facts in support. See

10 Given that any doubt regarding the existence of subject matter jurisdiction must 11 | be resolved in favor of remanding the action to state court, see Gaus,

, 12 | the court is not persuaded, under the circumstances here, that Defendant has met its 13 | burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy 14 | meets the jurisdictional threshold. Therefore, there is no basis for diversity 15 | jurisdiction. See

. 16 CONCLUSION 17 For the foregoing reasons, the court REMANDS the action to the Los Angeles 18 | County Superior Court, Case No. 24NNCV02048. All dates and deadlines in this 19 | court are VACATED. The clerk of the court shall close the action administratively. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 || Dated: October 7, 2024 04 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge 25 26 27 28