Gloria Balderrama v. Optum Care, Inc

C.D. California

Gloria Balderrama v. Optum Care, Inc

DecidedNovember 6, 2024

Docket2:24-cv-08758

StatusUnknown

This text of Gloria Balderrama v. Optum Care, Inc (Gloria Balderrama v. Optum Care, Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gloria Balderrama v. Optum Care, Inc, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 JS-6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GLORIA BALDERRAMA, ) Case No. CV 24-8758 FMO (MAAx) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) 13 v. ) ORDER REMANDING ACTION ) 14 OPTUM CARE, INC, ) ) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16 17 On December 15, 2023, Gloria Balderrama (“plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in the Los Angeles 18 County Superior Court against Optum Care, Inc. (“defendant”) asserting state law claims relating 19 to her employment. (See Dkt. 1, Notice of Removal (“NOR”) at ¶ 2); (Dkt. 1-1, Complaint). On 20 October 10, 2024, defendant removed that action on diversity jurisdiction grounds pursuant to 28 21 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 1441, and 1446. (See Dkt. 1, NOR at 2). Having reviewed the pleadings, the 22 court hereby remands this action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 23 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 24 LEGAL STANDARD 25 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized 26 by Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 27 S.Ct. 1673, 1675 (1994). The courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears 28 affirmatively from the record. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n. 3, 126 1 S.Ct. 1854, 1861 n. 3 (2006). Federal courts have a duty to examine jurisdiction sua sponte 2 before proceeding to the merits of a case, see Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 3 583, 119 S.Ct. 1563, 1569 (1999), “even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh 4 v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 1244 (2006). 5 “Under the plain terms of § 1441(a), in order properly to remove [an] action pursuant to that 6 provision, [the removing defendant] must demonstrate that original subject-matter jurisdiction lies 7 in the federal courts.” Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 33, 123 S.Ct. 366, 370 8 (2002); Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) 9 (noting the “longstanding, near-canonical rule that the burden on removal rests with the removing 10 defendant”); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (“The strong presumption 11 against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that 12 removal is proper.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). If there is any doubt regarding the 13 existence of subject matter jurisdiction, the court must resolve those doubts in favor of remanding 14 the action to state court.1 See Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if 15 there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”). 16 DISCUSSION 17 The court’s review of the NOR and the attached Complaint makes clear that the court does 18 not have subject matter jurisdiction over the instant matter. In other words, plaintiff could not have 19 originally brought this action in federal court, as plaintiff does not competently allege facts 20 supplying diversity jurisdiction.2 Therefore, removal was improper. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); 21 Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 2429 (1987) (“Only state-court 22 actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by 23 the defendant.”). 24 25 1 An “antiremoval presumption” does not exist in cases removed pursuant to the Class Action 26 Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89, 135 S.Ct. 547, 554 (2014). 27 2 Defendant seeks only to invoke the court’s diversity jurisdiction. (See, generally, Dkt. 1, 28 1 Defendant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount 2 in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 3 1117 (9th Cir. 2004); Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 4 2003) (per curiam) (“Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is 5 in controversy, the removing party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 6 amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold. Where doubt regarding the right to 7 removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court.”) (footnote omitted). Here, there is no 8 basis for diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy does not appear to exceed the 9 diversity jurisdiction threshold of $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).3 10 As an initial matter, the amount of damages plaintiff seeks cannot be determined from the 11 Complaint, as the Complaint does not set forth a specific amount. (See, generally, Dkt. 1-1, 12 Complaint). For the most part, defendant essentially cites to plaintiff’s requested forms of relief 13 as proof, ipso facto, that the amount plaintiff seeks meets the amount in controversy requirement. 14 (See Dkt. 1, NOR at ¶ I.B.). Such unsubstantiated assertions cannot satisfy the amount in 15 controversy requirement of § 1332(a). See, e.g., Gaus, 980 F.2d at 567 (remanding for lack of 16 diversity jurisdiction where defendant “offered no facts whatsoever. . . . [to] overcome[ ] the strong 17 presumption against removal jurisdiction, [and did not] satisf[y defendant’s] burden of setting forth 18 . . . the underlying facts supporting its assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds 19 $[75],000”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original). 20 In sum, given that any doubt regarding the existence of subject matter jurisdiction must be 21 resolved in favor of remanding the action, see Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566, the court is not persuaded, 22 under the circumstances here, that defendant has met its burden of showing by a preponderance 23 of the evidence that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold. See Matheson, 24 319 F.3d at 1090 (“Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is 25 26 3 In relevant part, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) provides that a district court has diversity jurisdiction 27 “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, . . . and is between . . .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 JS-6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GLORIA BALDERRAMA, ) Case No. CV 24-8758 FMO (MAAx) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) 13 v. ) ORDER REMANDING ACTION ) 14 OPTUM CARE, INC, ) ) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16 17 On December 15, 2023, Gloria Balderrama (“plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in the Los Angeles 18 County Superior Court against Optum Care, Inc. (“defendant”) asserting state law claims relating 19 to her employment. (See Dkt. 1, Notice of Removal (“NOR”) at ¶ 2); (Dkt. 1-1, Complaint). On 20 October 10, 2024, defendant removed that action on diversity jurisdiction grounds pursuant to 28 21 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 1441, and 1446. (See Dkt. 1, NOR at 2). Having reviewed the pleadings, the 22 court hereby remands this action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 23 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 24 LEGAL STANDARD 25 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized 26 by Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 27 S.Ct. 1673, 1675 (1994). The courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears 28 affirmatively from the record. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n. 3, 126 1 S.Ct. 1854, 1861 n. 3 (2006). Federal courts have a duty to examine jurisdiction sua sponte 2 before proceeding to the merits of a case, see Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 3 583, 119 S.Ct. 1563, 1569 (1999), “even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh 4 v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 1244 (2006). 5 “Under the plain terms of § 1441(a), in order properly to remove [an] action pursuant to that 6 provision, [the removing defendant] must demonstrate that original subject-matter jurisdiction lies 7 in the federal courts.” Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 33, 123 S.Ct. 366, 370 8 (2002); Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) 9 (noting the “longstanding, near-canonical rule that the burden on removal rests with the removing 10 defendant”); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (“The strong presumption 11 against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that 12 removal is proper.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). If there is any doubt regarding the 13 existence of subject matter jurisdiction, the court must resolve those doubts in favor of remanding 14 the action to state court.1 See Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if 15 there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”). 16 DISCUSSION 17 The court’s review of the NOR and the attached Complaint makes clear that the court does 18 not have subject matter jurisdiction over the instant matter. In other words, plaintiff could not have 19 originally brought this action in federal court, as plaintiff does not competently allege facts 20 supplying diversity jurisdiction.2 Therefore, removal was improper. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); 21 Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 2429 (1987) (“Only state-court 22 actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by 23 the defendant.”). 24 25 1 An “antiremoval presumption” does not exist in cases removed pursuant to the Class Action 26 Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89, 135 S.Ct. 547, 554 (2014). 27 2 Defendant seeks only to invoke the court’s diversity jurisdiction. (See, generally, Dkt. 1, 28 1 Defendant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount 2 in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 3 1117 (9th Cir. 2004); Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 4 2003) (per curiam) (“Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is 5 in controversy, the removing party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 6 amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold. Where doubt regarding the right to 7 removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court.”) (footnote omitted). Here, there is no 8 basis for diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy does not appear to exceed the 9 diversity jurisdiction threshold of $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).3 10 As an initial matter, the amount of damages plaintiff seeks cannot be determined from the 11 Complaint, as the Complaint does not set forth a specific amount. (See, generally, Dkt. 1-1, 12 Complaint). For the most part, defendant essentially cites to plaintiff’s requested forms of relief 13 as proof, ipso facto, that the amount plaintiff seeks meets the amount in controversy requirement. 14 (See Dkt. 1, NOR at ¶ I.B.). Such unsubstantiated assertions cannot satisfy the amount in 15 controversy requirement of § 1332(a). See, e.g., Gaus, 980 F.2d at 567 (remanding for lack of 16 diversity jurisdiction where defendant “offered no facts whatsoever. . . . [to] overcome[ ] the strong 17 presumption against removal jurisdiction, [and did not] satisf[y defendant’s] burden of setting forth 18 . . . the underlying facts supporting its assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds 19 $[75],000”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original). 20 In sum, given that any doubt regarding the existence of subject matter jurisdiction must be 21 resolved in favor of remanding the action, see Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566, the court is not persuaded, 22 under the circumstances here, that defendant has met its burden of showing by a preponderance 23 of the evidence that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold. See Matheson, 24 319 F.3d at 1090 (“Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is 25 26 3 In relevant part, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) provides that a district court has diversity jurisdiction 27 “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, . . . and is between . . . citizens of different States” or “citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state[.]” 28 28 1 in controversy, the removing party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 2 amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold. Where doubt regarding the right to 3 removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court.”) (footnote omitted); Valdez, 372 F.3d 4 at 1117. 5 This order is not intended for publication. Nor is it intended to be included in or 6 submitted to any online service such as Westlaw or Lexis. 7 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that: 8 1. The above-captioned action shall be remanded to the Superior Court of the State of 9 California, County of Los Angeles, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 10 § 1447(c). 11 2. The Clerk shall send a certified copy of this Order to the state court. 12 Dated this 6th day of November, 2024. 13 /s/ Fernando M. Olguin 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gloria Balderrama v. Optum Care, Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gloria-balderrama-v-optum-care-inc-cacd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack