Enrique Rios v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: May 14, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-00648
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 ENRIQUE RIOS, Case No. 2:26-cv-00648-MMD-NJK

7 Plaintiff, ORDER

8 v.

9 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, 10 Defendant. 11 12 I. SUMMARY 13 Plaintiff Enrique Rios filed an action in state court against Defendant Costco 14 Wholesale Corporation arising from an incident where Plaintiff was attacked by a dog 15 outside of a Costco store. Defendant removed based on diversity jurisdiction. (ECF No. 16 1 at 2 (“Petition”).) Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to remand. (ECF No. 12 17 (“Motion”).)1 Because the removal was procedurally defective, the Court will grant the 18 Motion. 19 II. DISCUSSION 20 Plaintiff seeks remand on two grounds—Defendant failed to establish the amount 21 in controversy to support diversity jurisdiction and alternatively, removal was 22 procedurally defective. (ECF No. 12.) Defendant’s response offers various arguments 23 as to why they have met their burden to establish the amount in controversy, relying 24 primarily on Plaintiff’s disclosure of his computation of damages. (ECF No. 15.) 25 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject-matter jurisdiction 26 only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See U.S. Const. art. III, 27 § 2, cl. 1; see also, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 28 1Defendant responded (ECF No. 15), and Plaintiff replied (ECF No. 16). 2 would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 3 Removal procedure of a civil action from a state to federal court is set forth in 28 4 U.S.C. § 1446. A defendant desiring to remove a case must generally do so within 30 5 days of service. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Here, Defendant asserts that notice of the 6 basis for removal is Plaintiff’s Request for Exemption from Arbitration (“REA”) filed on 7 February 6, 2026.2 (ECF No. 1 at 3.) Section 1446(b)(3) provides that “if the case stated 8 by the initial pleading is not removable, a notice of removal may be filed within 30 days 9 after receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of . . . other paper from 10 which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become 11 removable.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3). Defendant asserts that based on the REA, in which 12 Plaintiff “is claiming injuries” and has “incurred medical expenses of $34,034.35 and is 13 still treating,” “it is reasonable to conclude that the amount in controversy exceeds 14 $50,000.00.” (ECF No. 1 at 3.) In response to the Court’s order to show cause as to why 15 the action should not be remanded because of the amount in controversy (ECF No. 4)3, 16 Defendant submitted Dr. Nitin Engineer’s treatment proposal with an estimated cost of 17 $135,438.00 which Defendant received on October 9, 2025.4 (ECF No. 9.) 18 Removal is triggered under § 1446(b) upon “the receipt by the defendants of a 19 paper in the action from which removability may be ascertained.” Chan Healthcare Grp., 20 PS v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 844 F.3d 1133, 1142 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Eyak 21 Native Vill. v. Exxon Corp., 25 F.3d 773, 779 (9th Cir. 1994)). Courts look to the “four 22 corners of the initial pleading or subsequent papers” when determining when the 23 2Defendant removed on March 6, 2026. (ECF No. 1.) 24 3To establish subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to diversity of citizenship under 25 § 1332(a), the party asserting jurisdiction must show: (1) complete diversity of citizenship among opposing parties and (2) an amount in controversy exceeding 26 $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

27 4As noted, Defendant’s response offered Plaintiff’s initial disclosure on March 27, 2026 where Plaintiff includes in his computation of damages future medical treatment. 28 (ECF No. 15-1.) 2 F.3d 689, 691 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Lovern v. 3 Gen. Motors Corp., 121 F.3d 160, 162 (4th Cir. 1997)). Plaintiff argues that Defendant 4 essentially admits the REA did not provide a clear basis for removal because the REA 5 would have to be viewed with the pre-lawsuit records (i.e., Dr. Engineer’s proposal).5 6 (ECF Nos. 12 at 8-9; 16 at 5-7.) The Court agrees. The REA does not provide notice 7 that the amount in controversy would be met. In fact, the Petition alleges that based on 8 the REA, “it is reasonable to conclude the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000.00,” 9 not the $75,000 amount in controversy. (ECF No. 1 at 3.). Defendant’s response fails to 10 address Plaintiff’s removal-triggering argument, but instead argues the amount of future 11 treatment is not speculative. 12 In sum, the Court agrees with Plaintiff’s alternative argument that removal was 13 procedurally defective and will grant the Motion on this ground. 14 III. CONCLUSION 15 The Court notes that Plaintiff and Defendant made several arguments and cited 16 to several cases not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and 17 cases and determines that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the 18 outcome of the Motion before the Court. 19 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s motion to remand (ECF No. 12) is granted. 20 This action is remanded to the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada. 21 It is further ordered that the hearing scheduled for May 21, 2026, is vacated. 22 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court close this case. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26

27 5Indeed, accepting Defendant’s reliance on pre-lawsuit proposal from Dr. Engineer would suggest Defendant had notice of the amount in controversy when the 28 Complaint was filed, rendering removal untimely. 1 DATED THIS 14% Day of May 2026. 2

4 ee MIRANDA M. DU 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28