1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD CRISTDAHL, No. 2:25-cv-2737-TLN-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 THE HOME DEPOT, INC, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Proceeding without counsel, plaintiff Richard Cristdahl initiated this action in state court 19 and defendants filed a notice of removal based on diversity jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1.) This matter 20 was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302(c)(21). See

(b)(1). 21 On October 10, 2025, plaintiff filed a motion to remand and a motion for leave to amend 22 the complaint. (ECF Nos. 10, 11.) These motions are suitable for decision without oral argument 23 under Local Rule 230(g). Accordingly, the hearing set for December 3, 2025, is vacated. For the 24 reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends the court grant the motion for leave to 25 amend the complaint and deny the motion to remand. The undersigned will deny without 26 prejudice plaintiff’s request to file documents electronically. (ECF No. 10.) 27 //// 28 //// 1 I. Background 2 Plaintiff filed the complaint on August 20, 2025, in the Nevada County Superior Court. 3 (ECF No. 1 at 17-57.) The named defendants are Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., 4 sued as Sedgwick LLP (“Sedgwick”), Home Depot, Inc. (“Home Depot”) and LCS Record 5 Retrieval. Plaintiff asserts professional negligence by the defendants in relation to injuries 6 allegedly suffered when plaintiff tripped on an unattended pallet jack at Home Depot. (E.g.,

at 7 17, ¶ 1.) 8 Defendant Sedgwick, joined by the other defendants, filed the notice of removal on 9 September 24, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) Defendants filed answers to the complaint on September 29 10 and October 1, 2025. (ECF Nos. 4, 5, 6.) 11 On October 10, 2025, plaintiff filed the motion for leave to amend the complaint along 12 with a proposed amended complaint captioned “Second Amended Complaint” and the motion to 13 remand. (ECF Nos. 11, 12, 13.) Plaintiff seeks leave to amend to correct mistakes in the original 14 complaint. Specifically, plaintiff seeks to amend the damages sought to accurately reflect actual 15 damages and to correct other minor errors in several paragraphs. (See ECF No. 11.) As to the 16 amount of damages, the proposed amended complaint requests damages for medical bills 17 incurred, statutory damages, and damages for past and future pain and suffering “according to 18 proof.” (ECF No. 12, ¶¶ 283-285.) 19 Plaintiff also seeks remand, arguing the proposed amended complaint reduces the amount 20 in controversy below the $75,000 threshold, and thus that the amendment negates diversity 21 jurisdiction under

. All defendants oppose the motion to remand. (ECF Nos. 18, 22 19, 20.) Defendant Sedgwick additionally opposes the motion for leave to amend. (ECF No. 16.) 23 Plaintiff filed a reply to the defendants’ arguments. (ECF No. 22.) 24 II. Applicable Standards 25 A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity if (1) all plaintiffs and all 26 defendants are citizens of different states, and (2) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28

. The amount in controversy is determined by the complaint operative at the time of 28 removal. Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.,

(9th Cir. 2018). “[W]hen the 1 amount in controversy is satisfied at removal, any subsequent amendment to the complaint or 2 partial dismissal that decreases the amount in controversy below the jurisdictional threshold does 3 not oust the federal court of jurisdiction.”

at 417 (citing St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red 4 Cab Co.,

(1938)). 5 As relevant here, a party is allowed to amend their pleading once as a matter of course 6 within 21 days after service of a responsive pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). “In all other 7 cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the 8 court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 15(a)(2). 10 III. Discussion 11 As plaintiff acknowledges, his complaint filed in state court operative at the time of 12 removal pleaded damages exceeding $75,000. As such, the amount-in-controversy requirement is 13 “presumptively satisfied” unless “it appears to a ‘legal certainty’ that the claim is for less than the 14 jurisdictional amount.” Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp.,

(9th Cir. 2007) 15 (quoting Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 1996)). 16 Based on a review of the initial complaint, it appears plaintiff, in good faith, demanded 17 over $75,000 in damages in state court. In relevant part, the operative complaint at the time of 18 removal alleged plaintiff had already suffered $96,808 in medical expenses related to the incident 19 and that there would be additional charges for ongoing treatment. (ECF No. 1 at 53, ¶¶ 288-289.) 20 The operative complaint at the time of removal also requested $350,000 in damages for past and 21 future pain and suffering. (Id., ¶ 290.) These allegations are more than sufficient to satisfy the 22 amount in controversy. 23 In addition, during settlement negotiations, plaintiff countered a settlement offer with a 24 demand for $250,000. (ECF No. 22 at 2.) As set forth above, plaintiff’s proposed amended 25 complaint requests damages for medical bills incurred, statutory damages, and damages for past 26 and future pain and suffering “according to proof.” (ECF No. 12, ¶¶ 283-285.) Plaintiff argues 27 there have been no settlement discussions for an amount exceeding $75,000 since this case was 28 removed, and additionally that under a realistic view of the case, his damages should be under 1 $75,000. Those arguments are misplaced because the amount in controversy is determined by the 2 complaint operative at the time of removal. See Chavez,

. Considering all 3 the circumstances, there is no legal certainty that plaintiff’s claims are for less than the requisite 4 jurisdictional amount. Thus, this court has diversity jurisdiction over the causes of action, and the 5 motion to remand should be denied. 6 Separately, plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint should be granted. 7 Plaintiff filed the proposed amended complaint within 21 days after service of defendants’ 8 responsive pleadings, which is within the time frame for filing an amendment as of right. See Fed. 9 R.Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Although the proposed amended complaint is captioned “Second 10 Amended Complaint,” it is the first amended pleading filed by plaintiff in this case.1 11 IV. Request to E-file 12 Plaintiff seeks to participate in electronic case filing. (ECF No. 10.) “[A]ny person 13 appearing pro se may not utilize electronic filing except with the permission of the assigned Judge 14 or Magistrate Judge.” See E.D. Cal. L.R. 133(b)(2). Plaintiff states no reasons in support of the 15 request and does not provide good cause for deviance from the general procedure in the Local 16 Rule at the present time. The request will be denied without prejudice. 17 However, if plaintiff would like to receive immediate email notifications when documents 18 are filed in this case instead of receiving service by mail, plaintiff may file such a request. Such a 19 request should provide an email address and state plaintiff consents to receive service of 20 documents electronically and waives the right to receive service by first class mail. 21 V. Conclusion, Order, and Recommendation 22 In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 23 1. Plaintiff’s motion to e-file (ECF No. 10) is DENIED without prejudice. 24 2. The hearing set to take place on December 3, 2025, is VACATED. 25 //// 26 27 1 Plaintiff indicates he improperly filed a “First Amended Complaint” in the Nevada County Superior Court on September 30, 2025, under Case No. CU-0002289. (ECF No. 11 at 1.) That 28 occurred after the notice of removal was filed on September 24, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) 1 In addition, IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows: 2 1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 11) be granted. 3 2. Plaintiff's motion to remand (ECF No. 13) be denied. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 5 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 6 || days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 7 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 8 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 9 || shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within seven (7) days after service of the 10 || objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 11 || waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan,

, 455 (9th Cir. 12 | 1998); Martinez v. YIst,

(9th Cir. 1991). 13 | Dated: November 26, 2025 / ae □□ / a Ly a

15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 8 crist25ev2737.fr.jx 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28