Sabrina Luisa Ramirez v. Costco Wholesale Corporation; and Does 1-50, inclusive

Opinion

1 2

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 SABRINA LUISA RAMIREZ, No. 2:25-cv-03226 WBS CSK 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: 15 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; 16 and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 ----oo0oo---- 21 Plaintiff originally filed the present action, in which 22 she alleges various causes of action under California’s Fair 23 Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) arising from her employment 24 with defendants, in the San Joaquin County Superior Court. (See 25 Docket No. 1 at 2.) 26 Shortly thereafter, defendants filed a notice of 27 removal, in which they argue that removal is warranted on 28 1 diversity jurisdiction grounds. (See id. at 3 (citing 28 U.S.C. 2 §§ 1332(a)(1), 1441(a)).) 3 “Any civil action brought in a State court of which the 4 district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, 5 may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the 6 district court of the United States for the district and division 7 embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 8 1441(a). District courts have original jurisdiction over civil 9 actions in which the parties are completely diverse and “the 10 matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, 11 exclusive of interest and costs.”1 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 12 To determine the amount in controversy, the court must 13 look to the “face of the pleadings,” St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. 14 v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938), but may also consider 15 “facts in the removal petition” and “summary-judgment-type 16 evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time of 17 removal,” Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 18 2005). “Where, as here, it is unclear from the face of the 19 complaint whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, the 20 removing defendant bears the burden of establishing, by a 21 preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy 22 exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase 23 & Co., 888 F.3d 413, 416 (9th Cir. 2018) (quotations omitted). 24

25 1 The parties do not dispute that they are completely diverse. Indeed, plaintiff is a California citizen, and defendant Costco 26 Wholesale Corporation is a Washington citizen. (Docket No. 13 at 27 8.) Because they are citizens of different states, they are completely diverse. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 28 68 (1996). 1 The amount in controversy is “not a prospective 2 assessment of defendant's liability.” Lewis v. Verizon Commc'ns, 3 Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 400 (9th Cir. 2010). Rather, it is the 4 “amount at stake in the underlying litigation.” Gonzales, 840 5 F.3d at 648 (citation modified); see also Lewis, 627 F.3d at 400 6 (amount in controversy is “simply an estimate of the total amount 7 in dispute”). It may include, among other things, “damages 8 (compensatory, punitive, or otherwise) and the cost of complying 9 with an injunction, as well as attorneys’ fees awarded under fee 10 shifting statutes.” Gonzales, 840 F.3d at 648-49. 11 Plaintiff requests in her complaint general damages 12 corresponding to lost wages and benefits; special damages 13 corresponding to psychiatric treatment; compensatory damages 14 corresponding to emotional distress; punitive damages; statutory 15 penalties pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code § 12940 et seq.; and 16 attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code § 12965(c). 17 (Docket No. 1 at 31.) In her pre-litigation demand letter, 18 plaintiff estimated her total damages to be $241,646.46, 19 comprised of $45,823.23 in current and future lost wages; $75,000 20 in emotional distress damages; and $120,823.23 in punitive 21 damages. (Docket No. 1-2 at 15.) This estimate does not include 22 attorneys’ fees, which plaintiff may be entitled to recover if 23 she prevails against defendants at trial, see Cal. Govt. Code § 24 12965(c)(6). 25 Plaintiff’s demand letter is “relevant evidence of the 26 amount in controversy,” Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 840 27 (9th Cir. 2002), because it reflects her “assessment of the value 28 1 of her case,” Chase v. Shop ‘N Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., 110 2 F.3d 424, 428 (7th Cir. 1997). Having initially taken the 3 position that plaintiff’s case against defendants worth more than 4 $241,646.46, plaintiff’s counsel now asks the court to accept the 5 proposition that the case is in fact worth less than one-third 6 that. 7 Even without relying upon plaintiff’s demand letter, 8 defendants have established “by a preponderance of the evidence, 9 that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional 10 threshold,” Chavez, 888 F.3d at 416 (quotations omitted), by 11 tabulating plaintiff’s lost wages, which, at minimum, total 12 $40,000; providing evidence of jury verdicts in cases involving 13 similar circumstances; and providing evidence of attorneys’ fees 14 in cases involving similar circumstances. (See Docket No. 1 at 15 6-9.) Although plaintiff seems to suggest that attorneys’ fees 16 are unrecoverable (Docket No. 13 at 12-13), she “brings no 17 evidence, authority, or arguments on why, despite h[er] request 18 for attorneys’ fees in the complaint, the court's discretion 19 would nonetheless be better exercised by declining to award h[er] 20 attorneys’ fees under FEHA were [s]he to prevail at trial.” 21 Skipple v. Pepsico Beverage Sales, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-01046 WBS 22 CKD, 2024 WL 3011029, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 12, 2024). 23 Even applying “a conservative estimate of $10,000, an 24 amount even less than a 1:1 ratio of emotional distress damages 25 to economic damages”; the same for punitive damages; and 26 “$30,000,” a “reasonable and conservative estimate of the 27 attorney’s fees at the time of removal,” would place the amount 28 ee ne ne IE mI II OO I III EES NE in controversy at $90,0002, well above the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold. See Adkins v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 293 F. Supp. 3d 1140, 1147-48 (B.D. Cal. 2018) (Shubb, J.) (providing such “conservative” estimates in similar FEHA case). ° IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to ° remand (Docket No. 13) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. Dated: March 3, 2026 he ble 7H. “a A WILLIAMB.SHUBB- SSCS 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2 The $90,000 figure consists of $40,000 in economic damages, $10,000 in emotional distress damages, $10,000 in punitive 28 | damages, and $30,000 in attorneys’ fees.