Fredericks v. Lee

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: August 29, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00039
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6 * * *

7 DALE E. FREDERICKS, an individual, Case No. 3:23-cv-00039-LRH-CLB

8 Plaintiff, ORDER

9 v.

10 RICHARD D. LEE and THOMAS L. KIRKHAM, JR., individuals, 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff Dale E. Fredericks initiated this action in Second Judicial District Court of the 14 State of Nevada on December 22, 2022. Defendants Richard D. Lee and Thomas L. Kirkham, Jr. 15 filed a petition for removal (ECF No. 1) on January 27, 2023, asserting diversity jurisdiction. After 16 review of the complaint, Defendants’ petition for removal, and all briefing associated with 17 Plaintiff’s motion to remand, the Court finds that it has diversity jurisdiction over this cause of 18 action. 19 “[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States 20 have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court 21 of the United States for any district . . . where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 22 Among other reasons, the district courts of the United States have “original jurisdiction” where 23 there is diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 24 exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). When a defendant files a petition for removal, 25 the court must determine whether federal jurisdiction exists, even if no objection to removal is 26 made. See Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 878 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2017). When 27 doing so, the Court construes the removal and jurisdiction statutes strictly and in favor of 1 || “it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 2 || U.S.C. § 1447(c). In some cases, diversity jurisdiction is facially apparent from the complaint 3 || because the plaintiff claimed a sum greater than $75,000. See Urbino v. Orkin Servs. of Cal., Inc., 4 || 726 F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted). But when it is not facially apparent, “the 5 || removing defendant bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 6 || amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Jd. (quotation omitted). 7 Here, it is undisputed that the diversity of citizenship requirement 1s satisfied, leaving only 8 || the question of whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. 9 || Plaintiff alleges that he is owed compensation for his service as Evolve Lubricants, Inc.’s chief 10 || financial officer, assistant secretary, and director from April 2021 to November 2022. In his view, 11 || the amount in controversy in this case is only $15,000, the value of his option to purchase 300,000 12 || common shares. As Defendants argue, however, $15,000 is merely the cost to exercise □□□□□□□□□□□ 13 |} option; it is not the value of the object of this litigation. See Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. 14 |} Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 347 (1977). Defendants have proven by a preponderance of the evidence 15 || that the value of the 300,000 common shares at issue here exceeds $75,000. See ECF No. 35 16 || (sealed). 17 Accordingly, the Court finds that it has diversity jurisdiction over this case and denies 18 || Plaintiffs motion to remand for lack of jurisdiction. 19 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to remand (ECF No. 25) is 20 |} DENIED. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Documents Under 22 || Seal (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED as to ECF Nos. 35, 36. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 DATED this 29" day of August, 2023. -

2% L Y R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28