1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 LUZ GARCIA-ACOSTA, 6 Case No. 2:24-cv-00427-NJK Plaintiff(s), 7 Order v. 8 THE TJX COMPANIES, INC. d/b/a T.J. 9 MAXX, 10 Defendant(s). 11 Pending before the Court is the order to show cause why the case should not be remanded 12 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Docket No. 9. Defendant filed a response. Docket No. 15. 13 Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to remand. Docket No. 12. The parties consent 14 to the undersigned magistrate judge presiding over this case. See Docket Nos. 4-5; see also Fed. 15 R. Civ. P. 73. For the reasons discussed below, this case is hereby REMANDED to state court. 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 Plaintiff alleges that she slipped and fell on a wipe or towel that was on the floor of 18 Defendant’s T.J. Maxx establishment in Henderson, Nevada. Docket No. 1-2 at ¶¶ 6-7. On 19 January 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed suit in state court. Docket No. 1-2 at 1. On March 1, 2024, 20 Defendant removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Docket No. 1. 21 II. STANDARDS 22 When a case is filed in state court between parties who are citizens of different states and 23 the case value exceeds $75,000, the defendant may remove the case to federal court.

1332, 1441, 1446. “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life 25 Ins. Co. of Am.,

(1994), and there is a strong presumption against removal 26 jurisdiction, Gaus v. Miles,

(9th Cir. 1992). “[F]ederal jurisdiction must be 27 rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”

The defendant 28 always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.

This burden is usually satisfied 1 if the plaintiff claims a sum greater than the threshold requirement.

(citing St. Paul Mercury 2 Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co.,

, 288–99 (1938)). If the amount of plaintiff’s claim is 3 unclear, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional 4 amount has been met. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 1996). 5 Defendants may rely on facts presented in the removal petition and any summary-judgment-type 6 evidence that is related to the amount in controversy. Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 7

(9th Cir. 2003). The amount in controversy is judged based on the relief 8 claimed at the time of removal. Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.,

(9th Cir. 9 2018). 10 III. DISCUSSION 11 Defendant has filed a bare-bones response to the order to show cause, Docket No. 15, which 12 does not satisfy its burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. 13 As to the amount in controversy, the complaint itself does not exceed the $75,000 14 jurisdictional minimum. See Docket No. 1-2. Moreover, at the time of removal, Plaintiff claimed 15 only $24,328.87 in medical costs. Docket No. 1-4 at 5. Defendant removed in reliance on a 16 settlement demand that Plaintiff made on August 30, 2023, in which Plaintiff sought $125,000. 17 See Docket No. 1 at 1; see also Docket No. 1-5 at 1. While settlement demands may in some 18 instance be probative of an amount in controversy exceeding the jurisdictional minimum, Cohn v. 19 Petsmart, Inc.,

, 840 & n.3 (9th Cir. 2002), Plaintiff lowered that demand to $74,999 20 on September 25, 2023. Docket No. 12 at 6. Defendant removed the case thereafter on March 1, 21 2024. See Docket No. 1. 22 Defendant provides no meaningful argument as to how it has met its burden of establishing 23 an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000 given the record at the time of removal of 24 $24,328.87 in medical costs and a settlement demand of $74,999. See Docket No. 15 (response to 25 26 27 28 1} order to show cause). Instead, defense counsel merely proffers that they were unaware of the lower settlement demand when they decided to remove the case. See id. at 1-2. 3 Defendant having failed to meet its jurisdictional burden, remand is warranted.” 41IV. CONCLUSION 5 For the reasons discussed above, this case is hereby REMANDED to the Eighth Judicial 6] District Court, Case No. A-24-884655-C, Department 5. The Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to 7| close this case. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: April 29, 2024 10 A $Y A Nancy J. Ko 1] United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21) ____ ' Defendant also indicates that Plaintiff has not provided initial disclosures with a damages 22| computation, Docket No. 15 at 1, but the Court declines to consider that issue because Defendant fails to offer meaningfully developed argument as to why remand can be avoided on that basis. 23|| See Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green,

, 582 n.3 (D. Nev. 2013). 24 ? Even were the Court to rely on the earlier $125,000 settlement demand, it is not clear that the jurisdictional minimum would be met in this case. See, e.g., Randolph v. Albertsons LLC,

, at *2 (D. Nev. Dec. 2, 2020) (case involving $32,811.24 in medical costs and a settlement demand of $164,800); Guerrero v. Panda Express, Inc.,

, at *2 (D. 26] Nev. May 1, 2019) (case involving $17,651.92 in medical costs and a settlement demand of $100,000); Cayer v. Vons Cos.,

, at *3-4 (D. Nev. July 21, 2017) (case involving 27| $40,054.76 in actual damages and a settlement demand of $1,000,000); Hanshew vy. Blazin Wings, Inc.,

, at *2 (D. Nev. Dec. 30, 2016) (case involving $41,537.41 in medical 28] costs and lost wages, and a settlement demand of $325,000).