Opinion
CV 23-6718-GW-AJRx
02-20-2024
Terry Lee Dorris v. Wal-Mart Assocates., Inc.
Present The Honorable GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
PROCEEDINGS: IN CHAMBERS - ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND; VACATING HEARING
On August 16, 2023, defendant Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. (“Defendant”) removed this case, filed on July 14, 2023, to this Court, asserting the Court's subject matter jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiff Terry Lee Dorris (“Plaintiff”) moved to remand on December 27, 2023, asserting only that Defendant is unable to demonstrate the sufficient minimum amount-in-controversy, $75,000.01. The Court will deny the motion without need for oral argument. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15.
The amount-in-controversy calculation is an attempt to measure the amount that a plaintiff's complaint puts “at stake.” See Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 888 F.3d 413, 417 (9th Cir. 2018); Lewis v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 400 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The amount in controversy is simply an estimate of the total amount in dispute, not a prospective assessment of defendant's liability.”). Plaintiff's Complaint contains six causes of action. Each of those causes of action includes an allegation that he suffered great mental pain and suffering “in an amount in excess of this Court's” -i.e., Los Angeles County Superior Court, where Plaintiff filed the Complaint - “minimal jurisdiction.” Complaint ¶¶ 26, 37, 48, 60, 72, 84. The caption of Plaintiff's Complaint pleads a “Demand over $25,000.” Complaint at 1:27. The Superior Court's unlimited civil jurisdiction at the time Plaintiff filed his Complaint was a minimum of $25,000 (it has since been raised to $35,000). See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 86(a)(1); Weil & Brown et al., Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2023), ¶ 3:9, at 3-4. As such, Plaintiff's Complaint, with the claims aggregated, see Bank of Cal. Nat'l Ass'n v. Twin Harbors Lumber Co., 465 F.2d 489, 491 (9th Cir. 1972), puts at stake $150,000 ($25,000 x 6) as a result of these paragraphs, by themselves. Defendant pointed this out in its Opposition to Plaintiff's motion to remand. See Docket No. 22, at 5:26-6:12. Plaintiff did not respond at all to this point in his Reply brief, thereby conceding the propriety of Defendant's calculation in this regard.
Whether the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence because the Complaint does not affirmatively reveal the amount-in-controversy, see, e.g., Chavez, 888 F.3d at 416, or whether the “legal certainty” test applies because the Complaint affirmatively reveals an amount over $75,000 (because of paragraphs 26, 37, 48, 60, 72 and 84), see, e.g., Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 401-02 (9th Cir. 1996), the conclusion is the same. It has been established that Plaintiff's Complaint puts at stake an amount in excess of $75,000 for the reason expressed above, irrespective of whether Defendant's other calculations for how that figure could be met are or are not sufficient.
There is no need to consider the parties' other arguments regarding the calculations Defendant has otherwise offered. The Court denies the motion and vacates the February 26, 2024 hearing date set for the motion. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15.
It is so ordered.