Saira Sheikh v. DaVita Inc., a Delaware corporation; DVA Rental Healthcare, Inc., a Tennessee corporation; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 9, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00111
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAIRA SHEIKH, an individual, 12 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:25-cv-00111-TLN-CSK 13 v. 14 DAVITA INC., a Delaware corporation; ORDER DVA RENTAL HEALTHCARE, INC., a 15 Tennessee corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Saira Sheikh’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Remand. 20 (ECF No. 4.) Defendants DaVita, Inc. (“DaVita”) and DVA Healthcare, Inc. (“DVA”) 21 (collectively, “Defendants”) filed an opposition. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff did not file a reply. For 22 the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. 23 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 24 This case arises from an employment dispute. Defendants employed Plaintiff as a File 25 Clerk from February 11, 2005 to August 1, 2024. (ECF No. 4 at 3.) On or about April 29, 2024, 26 Plaintiff’s husband sustained a severe back injury in a car accident requiring surgery. (Id. at 4.) 27 Plaintiff took temporary leave to serve as her husband’s caregiver and subsequently requested a 28 transfer to a smaller clinic closer to her home. (Id.) Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff was terminated 1 without explanation. (Id.) 2 On December 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in Solano County Superior Court, asserting 3 the following claims: (1) associational disability discrimination in violation of Fair Employment 4 and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA; (3) failure to 5 engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA; (4) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (5) 6 violation of the California Family Rights Act; (6) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation 7 in violation of FEHA; and (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. (ECF No. 1 at 8 65–84.) On January 10, 2025, Defendants removed the action to this Court based on diversity 9 jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1.) On January 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand. 10 (ECF No. 4.) 11 II. STANDARD OF LAW 12 A civil action brought in state court, over which the district court has original jurisdiction, 13 may be removed by Defendants to federal court in the judicial district and division in which the 14 state court action is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The district court has original jurisdiction 15 over civil actions between citizens of different states in which the alleged damages exceed 16 $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of 17 proving diversity. Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Resnik v. La Paz Guest 18 Ranch, 289 F.2d 814, 819 (9th Cir. 1961)). Removal statutes are to be strictly construed against 19 removal. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (overruled on other grounds in 20 Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 87–89 (2014)). 21 The amount in controversy is determined by reference to the complaint itself and 22 “includes the amount of damages in dispute, as well as attorney's fees, if authorized by statute or 23 contract.” Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2005). Where the complaint 24 does not pray for damages in a specific amount, Defendants must prove by a preponderance of the 25 evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 26 Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 376 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 27 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996)). If the amount is not facially apparent from the complaint, a court may 28 “require parties to submit summary-judgment-type evidence relevant to the amount in 1 controversy at the time of removal.” Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d. at 376 2 (citing Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1336 (5th Cir. 1995)). 3 III. ANALYSIS 4 Plaintiff argues this action should be remanded because Defendants have failed to show 5 the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (ECF No. 4 at 4.) Specifically, Plaintiff argues 6 Defendants’ calculation of lost wages is speculative because it was calculated up through a 7 hypothetical trial date and is incorrect because it relies on a higher annual salary than Plaintiff 8 alleged to have earned in her Complaint. (Id. at 7–8.) Plaintiff further argues Defendants provide 9 no evidentiary support for the estimate of attorney’s fees, emotional distress damages, or punitive 10 damages. (Id. at 8–9.) 11 In opposition, Defendants contends the amount in controversy easily exceeds $75,000 12 with Plaintiff’s lost wages claim alone. (ECF No. 11 at 16.) Defendants argue the amount in 13 controversy is not limited to the damages incurred prior to removal but also includes all damages 14 a prevailing plaintiff would be entitled to through the trial date. (Id. at 10 (citing Chavez v. 15 JPMorgan Chase & Co., 888 F.3d 413, 417 (9th Cir. 2018)).) Defendants contend courts within 16 the Ninth Circuit routinely endorse calculating a plaintiff’s damages for a lost wage claim based 17 on a reasonable assumption that trial will not be set for at least one year from the date of the filing 18 of removal. (ECF No. 11 at 11 (citing Fisher v. HNTB Corp., Case No. 2:18-cv-08173-AB- 19 MRW, 2018 WL 6323077, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2018)).) Based on Plaintiff’s annual salary 20 and the period of time during which Plaintiff will accrue lost wages, Defendants contend 21 Plaintiff’s lost wages damages is reasonably estimated at $194,420, which exceeds the amount in 22 controversy requirement. (Id. at n.1) In addition, Defendants assert the amount in controversy is 23 evidenced by Plaintiff’s own settlement position and other similar wrongful termination cases. 24 (Id. at 9, 12–13.) Finally, Defendants argue the amount in controversy requirement can be met by 25 relying on Plaintiff’s remaining claims for punitive damages, emotional distress, and attorneys’ 26 fees. (Id. at 13–16.) 27 At the outset, the Court notes the parties do not dispute that diversity of citizenship exists. 28 As such, the Court only addresses whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Evidence 1 establishing the amount is required by 28 U.S.C § 1446(c)(2)(B) only when the plaintiff contests, 2 or the court questions, the defendant’s allegations in its notice of removal. See Owens, 574 U.S. 3 at 89. 4 Here, Defendants have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in 5 controversy exceeds $75,000. First and foremost, Defendants provide the declaration of Human 6 Resources professional, Kristine Mendoza (“Mendoza”), who has personal knowledge of 7 DaVita’s employment personnel records. (ECF No. 1-2.) Mendoza’s declaration asserts that 8 Plaintiff’s annual salary at the time of Plaintiff’s termination was $134,655.30. (Id. at 2.) The 9 Court agrees with Defendants that the amount in controversy includes all damages a prevailing 10 plaintiff would be entitled to through the trial date and a reasonable estimate of the trial date is 11 one year from the date of removal. See Chavez, 888 F.3d at 417; Fisher, 2018 WL 6323077, at 12 *5; see also Ulloa v. California Newsp. Partners, Case No. LA CV20-11776 JAK (AGRx), 2021 13 WL 6618815, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2021). Accordingly, Defendants’ lost wages calculation 14 of at least $194,420.12 is correct. As Defendants have demonstrated the amount in controversy 15 exceeds $75,000 with Plaintiff’s lost wages claim alone, the Court finds it is unnecessary to 16 address the remaining arguments. 17 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 4.) 18 IV. CONCLUSION 19 For the aforementioned reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (ECF 20 No. 4). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Date: September 9, 2025 23 24 25 26 27 28