Antonia Pineda v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

Opinion

1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTONIA PINEDA, Case No. 2:23-cv-02377-FLA (AFMx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING ACTION FOR 13 v. LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 14 CVS PHARMACY, INC, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 RULING 19 On November 10, 2022, Plaintiff Antonia Pineda (“Plaintiff”) initiated this 20 action against Defendant CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (“Defendant” or “CVS”), LILY DOE, 21 and DOES 1 through 50 in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Dkt. 1, Ex. A 22 (“Compl.”). The Complaint asserts state-law claims for general negligence and 23 premises liability based on a slip-and-fall incident at a CVS store location. Id. 24 On March 30, 2023, Defendant removed the action to this court based on 25 alleged diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. 1. In its Notice of Removal, Defendant alleges the 26 court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the amount in 27 controversy exceeds $75,000. Id. Defendant relies on Plaintiff’s Statement of 28 Damages served on March 27, 2023, seeking $749,728. Id. 1 On July 25, 2023, the court ordered the parties to show cause why the action 2 should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to an insufficient 3 amount in controversy. Dkt. 18. Only Defendant filed a response. Dkt. 19. 4 Having reviewed the Notice of Removal and Defendant’s response to this 5 court’s Order to Show Cause, and for the following reasons, the court finds Defendant 6 fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction and accordingly REMANDS this action to 7 the Los Angeles County Superior Court. 8 DISCUSSION 9 Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power 10 authorized by the Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 11 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. District courts are 12 presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the 13 record. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n. 3 (2006). 14 Additionally, federal courts have an obligation to examine jurisdiction sua sponte 15 before proceeding to the merits of a case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 16 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). 17 Federal courts have jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law or 18 where each plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship and the 19 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. 20 §§ 1331, 1332(a). Thus, a notice removing an action from state court to federal court 21 must include “a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the 22 jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 23 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). Where “the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the 24 defendant’s allegation” concerning the amount in controversy, “both sides [shall] 25 submit proof,” and the court may then decide whether the defendant has proven the 26 amount in controversy “by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at 88-89. “Federal 27 jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first 28 instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). It is Defendant’s 1 burden as the removing party to justify this court’s exercise of jurisdiction. Id. at 567. 2 Here, the amount of damages Plaintiff seeks cannot be determined from the 3 Complaint, as it does not set forth a specific amount. See generally Compl. 4 Defendant, however, contends that Plaintiff served a Statement of Damages indicating 5 Plaintiff is seeking $650,000 in general damages and $99,728 in special damages1. 6 Dkt. 1 Ex. C; Dkt. 19, Ex. 2. A statement of damages “is relevant evidence of the 7 amount in controversy if it appears to reflect a reasonable estimate of the plaintiff’s 8 claim.” Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2002). “A plaintiff’s 9 damage estimate will not establish the amount in controversy, however, if it appears to 10 be only a bold optimistic prediction.” Romsa v. Ikea U.S. West, Inc., Case No. 2:14- 11 cv-05552-MMM (JEMx), 2014 WL 4273265, *2 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (internal quotation 12 marks omitted). 13 It is clear the $749,728 in damages set forth in the Statement of Damages is 14 simply a “bold optimistic prediction” and is not a reasonable estimate of Plaintiff’s 15 claims. See id. (“The leap from $4,597.77 in medical expenses incurred to 16 [defendant’s] assertion that [plaintiff’s son] has suffered damages in excess of $75,000 17 because he cries a lot and wakes up several times a night is difficult to credit. 18 [Defendant] cites no facts that indicate a damages award anywhere near $75,000 – let 19 alone $1,000,000 – is likely.”). Significantly, the Statement of Damages cites no facts 20 to explain how Plaintiff determined the $749,728 amount. See Dkt. 1 Ex. C; Dkt. 19, 21 Ex. 2; Romsa, 2014 WL 4273265, at *2 (noting Plaintiff’s statement of damages did 22 not explain how he arrived at his figures); Schroeder v. Petsmart, Inc., Case No. 2:19- 23 cv-01561-FMO (AGRx), 2019 WL 1895573, *2 (C.D. Cal. 2019) (same); Mata v. 24 25 1 Despite acknowledging the $75,000 jurisdictional minimum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Defendant argues that, based on the Statement of Damages, “it is more likely 26 than not that the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000 under Sanchez.” Dkt. 19 at 27 7; see Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 298, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). Sanchez, however, refers to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 prior to the 1996 amendment, which 28 raised the amount in controversy from $50,000 to $75,000. | | Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-01758-FMO (AFMx), 2022 WL 3586206, 2 | *2 (C.D. Cal. 2022) (same); see also Owens v. Westwood College Inc., 2013 WL 3 | 4083624, *4 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (finding Plaintiffs settlement demand letters could not 4 | be used to establish the amount in controversy requirement because they “demand[ed] 5 | an arbitrary settlement figure, with no showing of how [the] figure was calculated”). 6 Given that any doubt regarding the existence of subject matter jurisdiction must 7 || be resolved in favor of remanding the action to state court, see Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566, 8 | the court is not persuaded, under the circumstances here, that Defendant has met its 9 | burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy 10 | meets the jurisdictional threshold. Therefore, there is no basis for diversity 11 | jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 12 CONCLUSION 13 For the foregoing reasons, the court REMANDS the action to the Los Angeles 14 | County Superior Court, Case No. 22PSCV01761. All dates and deadlines in this court 15 | are VACATED. The clerk of the court shall close the action administratively. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 | Dated: August 15, 2023 20 = 5 2! FERNANDO ‘L. AENLLE-ROCHA 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28