David Hopper v. SRS Distributions, Inc. ( 2021 )

= CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 2 3 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BY: CW DEPUTY 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SOUTHERN DIVISION 10 11 || DAVID HOPPER, Case No.: SACV 20-02302-CJC (ADSx) 12 Plaintiff, 13 4 v: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND [Dkt. 13] 15 || STS DISTRIBUTIONS, INC. and DOES 6 1 through 10, M Defendants. 18 19 20 21 22 23 || I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND 24 25 Plaintiff David Hopper brings this employment action against Defendant STS 26 || Distributions, Inc. and unnamed Does. (Dkt. 1-1 [Complaint, hereinafter “Compl.’”’].) He 27 || filed his complaint in California state court under California’s Fair Employment and 28 || Housing Act. (/d.) He asserts six causes of action for (1) disability discrimination, (2) 1 || failure to reasonably accommodate, (3) failure to engage in the interactive process, 2 ||(4) failure to maintain a workplace free from discrimination and retaliation, 3 retaliation, and (6) wrongful termination. (/d. 25—68.) Plaintiff seeks economic 4 |}and non-economic damages as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. (Ud. at 18.) 5 6 On December 7, 2020, Defendant filed a notice of removal asserting that this Court 7 || has diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. (Dkt. 1 [hereinafter “NOR”].) Now 8 before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to remand. (Dkt. 13 [hereinafter “Mot.”].) For the 9 || following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 10 11 LEGAL STANDARD 12 13 A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to a federal district court 14 || when the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. 15 || § 1441. Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over cases where the amount in 16 |}controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is complete diversity of citizenship between the 17 || parties. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The removal statute is strictly construed “against removal 18 || Jurisdiction” and “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the 19 of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 20 1992). “The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant 21 ||always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Jd. (quotations omitted). 22 23 24 25 26 TWh Having read and considered the papers presented by the parties, the Court finds this matter appropriate 28 || for disposition without a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing set for February 22, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. is hereby vacated and off calendar. 1 DISCUSSION 2 3 Plaintiff argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction because Defendant has failed to 4 establish an amount in controversy over $75,000. A notice of removal must include only 5 plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional 6 ||threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 553-54, 7 ||(2014). But where “the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the defendant’s 8 ||allegation” and “both sides submit proof,” the defendant must prove the amount in 9 controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. /d. at 554. 10 11 Defendant argues that Plaintiffs claim for compensatory damages, “allegedly 12 || comprised of ‘financial losses, including without limitation, loss of income, earnings, 13 || salary and benefits,’” is sufficient to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. 14 || (NOR ¥ 22 [quoting Compl. 4] 30].) The Court agrees. In support of its notice of 15 ||removal, Defendant submitted a declaration from Candice Story, Defendant’s Payroll 16 || Services Manager. (Dkt. 6 [hereinafter “Story Decl.” Story declares that Plaintiff's 17 |}annual salary was $72,000, or $6,000 a month. (/d. § 4.) Defendant calculated □□□□□□□□□□□ 18 || alleged financial losses as $78,000 by multiplying Plaintiff's monthly salary of $6,000 by 19 13 months that elapsed between Plaintiffs termination on November 12, 2019, 20 |}(Compl. 4 15), and Defendant’s removal of the case on December 7, 2020. (NOR J 22.) 21 || This is sufficient to establish the amount in controversy requirement, even before 22 || considering Plaintiffs alleged non-economic damages. 23 24 Plaintiff argues that Defendant fails to consider Plaintiff's mitigation efforts which 25 || would reduce the amount in controversy below the $75,000 threshold. (Mot. at 6-7.) 26 || Plaintiff, however, fails to offer any evidence which suggests he mitigated Defendant’s 27 || damages. 28 1 || IV. CONCLUSION 2 3 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to remand is DENIED. 4 s || DATED: February 16, 2021 Ko Lo ff HON. CORMAC J.CARNEY 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28