1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 MIRIAM GOMEZ, Case No.: 2:23-cv-00081-APG-BNW

4 Plaintiff Order Remanding Case

5 v.

6 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,

7 Defendant

8 I previously ordered defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation to show cause why this 9 action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 5. Costco has not 10 established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 11 The plaintiff incurred only $17,305.06 in medical bills and Costco has presented no evidence of 12 other damages, such as lost wages. ECF No. 8 at 11. Costco relies on the plaintiff’s settlement 13 demands for $120,000 and $100,000. Id. at 9-14. “A settlement letter is relevant evidence of the 14 amount in controversy if it appears to reflect a reasonable estimate of the plaintiff’s claim.” Cohn 15 v. Petsmart, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2002). But given the low amount of medical bills 16 and no evidence of other damages, there is insufficient evidence that the settlement demands are 17 reasonable estimates of the value of the plaintiff’s claims. 18 Based on my judicial, legal, and practical experience and common sense, I find it 19 unlikely that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. In addition to awarding full recovery 20 of her medical bills, a jury would have to award additional damages over $57,000. The 21 underlying allegations do not suggest such an award. Thus, Costco has not met its burden of 22 establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 23 Roe, 613 F.3d at 1061-1062; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. I thus remand this action to state court. 1 I THEREFORE ORDER that this case is remanded to the state court from which it was 2\|removed for all further proceedings. The clerk of the court is instructed to close this case. 3 DATED this Ist day of February, 2023. CG > ANDREWP.GORDON sits 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23