1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KATAYOON AZIMIFARD, Case No. 2:24-cv-01752-FLA (KESx) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING ACTION FOR 13 v. LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 14 WALMART INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 RULING 2 On September 21, 2023, Plaintiff Katayoon Azimifard (“Plaintiff”) filed a 3 Complaint against Defendant Walmart Inc. (“Defendant”) and DOES 1 through 20 in 4 the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Dkt. 1-11 (“Compl.”). The Complaint 5 asserts state-law claims for general negligence and premises liability based on a slip- 6 and-fall incident at Defendant’s store in West Hills, California. Id. at 4–5. 7 On March 30, 2023, Defendant removed the action to this court based on 8 alleged diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. 1. In its Notice of Removal, Defendant alleges the 9 court has subject matter jurisdiction under

because the amount in 10 controversy exceeds $75,000.

. Defendant relies on Plaintiff’s Statement of 11 Damages served October 23, 2023, seeking $2,000,000. Id.; Dkt. 1-5 (“Statement of 12 Damages”). 13 On April 15, 2024, the court ordered the parties to show cause why the action 14 should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to an insufficient 15 amount in controversy. Dkt. 14. Only Defendant filed a response (“Response”). Dkt. 16 18 (“Def.’s Resp.”). 17 Having reviewed the Notice of Removal and Defendant’s Response, and for the 18 following reasons, the court finds Defendant fails to establish subject matter 19 jurisdiction and accordingly REMANDS this action to the Los Angeles County 20 Superior Court. 21 DISCUSSION 22 Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power 23 authorized by the Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 24 Am.,

(1994); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. District courts are 25 presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the 26 record. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno,

, 342 n. 3 (2006). 27 Additionally, federal courts have an obligation to examine jurisdiction sua sponte 28 1 before proceeding to the merits of a case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526

, 583 (1999). 3 Federal courts have jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law or 4 where each plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship and the 5 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. 6 §§ 1331, 1332(a). Thus, a notice removing an action from state court to federal court 7 must include “a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the 8 jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574

, 89 (2014). Where “the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the 10 defendant’s allegation” concerning the amount in controversy, “both sides [shall] 11 submit proof,” and the court may then decide whether the defendant has proven the 12 amount in controversy “by a preponderance of the evidence.”

at 88–89. “Federal 13 jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first 14 instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). It is Defendant’s 15 burden as the removing party to justify this court’s exercise of jurisdiction.

. 16 Here, the amount of damages Plaintiff seeks cannot be determined from the 17 Complaint, as it does not set forth a specific amount. See Compl. Defendant, 18 however, points to Plaintiff’s Statement of Damages, which indicates Plaintiff seeks 19 $1,000,000 for pain, suffering, and inconvenience, $500,000 for medical expenses to 20 date, and $500,000 for future medical expenses. Def.’s Resp. at 1; Statement of 21 Damages. A statement of damages “is relevant evidence of the amount in controversy 22 if it appears to reflect a reasonable estimate of the plaintiff’s claim.” Cohn v. 23 Petsmart, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2002). “A plaintiff’s damage estimate will 24 not establish the amount in controversy, however, if it appears to be only a bold 25 optimistic prediction.” Romsa v. Ikea U.S. W., Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-05552-MMM 26 (JEMx),

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2014) (internal quotation marks 27 omitted). 28 1 It is clear the $2,000,000 in damages set forth in the Statement of Damages is 2 simply a “bold optimistic prediction” and is not a reasonable estimate of Plaintiff’s 3 claims. See

(“The leap from $4,597.77 in medical expenses incurred to 4 [defendant’s] assertion that [plaintiff’s son] has suffered damages in excess of $75,000 5 because he cries a lot and wakes up several times a night is difficult to credit. 6 [Defendant] cites no facts that indicate a damages award anywhere near $75,000 – let 7 alone $1,000,000 – is likely.”). Significantly, the Statement of Damages cites no facts 8 to explain how Plaintiff determined the $2,000,000 amount. See Statement of 9 Damages; see also Romsa,

, at *2 (remanding action where 10 Plaintiff’s statement of damages did not explain how he arrived at the damages 11 estimated); Schroeder v. Petsmart, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-01561-FMO (AGRx), 2019

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2019) (same); Mata v. Home Depot U.S.A., 13 Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-01758-FMO (AFMx),

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 14 Aug. 22, 2022) (same); see also Owens v. Westwood Coll. Inc.,

, 15 at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2013) (finding plaintiff’s settlement demand letters could 16 not be used to establish the amount in controversy requirement because they 17 “demand[ed] an arbitrary settlement figure, with no showing of how [the] figure was 18 calculated”). 19 Given that any doubt regarding the existence of subject matter jurisdiction must 20 be resolved in favor of remanding the action to state court, see Gaus,

, 21 the court is not persuaded, under the circumstances here, that Defendant has met its 22 burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy 23 meets the jurisdictional threshold. Therefore, there is no basis for diversity 24 jurisdiction. See

. 25 CONCLUSION 26 For the foregoing reasons, the court REMANDS the action to the Los Angeles 27 County Superior Court, Case No. 23VECV04198. All dates and deadlines in this 28 1 | court are VACATED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand (Dkts. 11-12)! is DENIED as 2 || moot. The clerk of the court shall close the action administratively. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 | Dated: May 15, 2024 4 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

3g appears Plaintiff inadvertently filed her Motion for Remand twice. See Dkts. 11—