Hensley v. Lazer Spot, Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RUSSELL K. HENSLEY, No. 2:20-cv-00062-JAM-CKD 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND 13 LAZER SPOT, INC. and DOES 1- 100, inclusive, 14 Defendant. 15 16 After Lazer Spot, Inc.’s former employee, Russell Hensley, 17 filed suit in Yolo County Superior Court, the corporation removed 18 this case to federal court. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. Lazer 19 Spot invoked the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, arguing the 20 amount in controversy exceeded the statutory threshold and that 21 the two parties—a California citizen and a Georgia corporation— 22 are completely diverse. Notice of Removal at 2-6. In response, 23 Hensley filed a motion to remand.1 ECF No. 8. He contends the 24 Court should not rely upon the amount in controversy listed in 25 his complaint because it mistakenly alleges that Hensley seeks up 26 27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 28 scheduled for April 7, 2020. 1 to $4,999,999.99 in monetary damages. Mot. at 3 (citing Guez 2 Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 8-1). The actual amount in controversy, 3 Hensley argues, is $52,213.15, exclusive of attorney fees. Id.; 4 Reply at 1-2, ECF No. 12. 5 When a complaint “alleges on its face an amount in 6 controversy sufficient to meet the federal jurisdictional 7 threshold, [the amount in controversy] requirement is 8 presumptively satisfied unless it appears to a ‘legal certainty’ 9 that a plaintiff cannot actually recover that amount.” 10 Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 11 2007). As explained below, Hensley failed to either satisfy the 12 legal certainty standard or provide compelling reasons for why 13 that standard should not apply. For these reasons, the Court 14 denies his motion to remand. 15 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 From 2016 through 2019, Hensley worked for Lazer Spot at its 18 trucking yard management center in Yolo County, CA. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 19 11, ECF No. 1-1. He alleges that Spot failed to timely 20 compensate him for (1) involuntarily-forfeited rest periods; 21 (2) involuntarily-forfeited meal periods; (3) overtime; and 22 (4) off-the clock work. Compl. ¶¶ 26-39, 47-64. Hensley argues 23 Lazer Spot also failed to provide him with accurate pay stubs. 24 Compl. ¶¶ 40-46. He seeks monetary and injunctive relief for 25 these violations of California law. See Compl. ¶¶ 26-64. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 II. OPINION 2 A. Legal Standard 3 A defendant may generally remove an action filed in state 4 court if the federal district courts have original jurisdiction 5 over the claims. Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 888 F.3d 413, 6 414 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). Defendants 7 seeking to remove a case based on a federal court’s diversity 8 jurisdiction must show that, at the time of removal, the parties 9 are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds 10 $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs. Matheson v. 11 Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 12 2003) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)). When it is unclear from 13 the face of the complaint filed in state court whether the 14 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, “the removing defendant 15 bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the 16 evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds the 17 jurisdictional threshold.” Chavez, 888 F.3d at 416. But when 18 the complaint “alleges on its face an amount in controversy 19 sufficient to meet the federal jurisdictional threshold, such 20 requirement is presumptively satisfied unless it appears to a 21 ‘legal certainty’ that the plaintiff cannot actually meet that 22 amount.” Guglielmino, 506 F.3d at 699. 23 B. Analysis 24 The face of Hensley’s complaint states that the amount in 25 controversy is $4,999,999.99. See Infanzon v. Allstate Insur. 26 Co., No. CV 19-06483-JAK-SKx, 2019 WL 5847833, at *4 (C.D. Cal. 27 Nov. 6, 2019) (“Where the pleadings seek ‘up to’ an amount or set 28 a cap ‘not to exceed’ a certain figure, ‘this suffices as a 1 statement of the amount in controversy upon which Defendants can 2 rely in properly removing the action to federal court.”). 3 Hensley nonetheless argues this Court lacks diversity 4 jurisdiction because the actual amount in controversy—$52,213.15— 5 falls short of the jurisdictional minimum. Mot. at 2-3. Hensley 6 urges the Court to consider this amount, rather than the 7 $4,999,999.99 mistakenly claimed in the complaint, to conduct its 8 jurisdictional analysis. Id. Albeit attractive in its 9 simplicity, the Court cannot adopt this approach. 10 Lazer Spot’s opposition correctly surveys much of the in- 11 circuit authority on this issue. Opp’n 1-3. When, following 12 removal, a plaintiff argues the amount in controversy differs 13 from the amount alleged in his complaint, he must show to a 14 “legal certainty” that he could not recover more than $75,000. 15 Guglielmino, 506 F.3d at 699. A plaintiff can only meet this 16 high bar by pointing to “a rule of law or limitation of damages 17 [that] would make it virtually impossible for [him] to meet the 18 amount-in-controversy requirement.’” Amezquita v. JC Penney 19 Corp., Inc., No. 1:18-cv-0177-AWI-SAB, 2018 WL 1181675, at *2 20 (quoting Pachinger v. MGM Grand Hotel-Las Vegas, Inc., 802 F.2d 21 362, 364 (9th Cir. 1986). As Lazer Spot argues, the Central 22 District of California has uniformly rejected the notion that a 23 mistake or typographical error in the complaint frees plaintiffs 24 from satisfying the legal certainty standard. Opp’n at 2; Perez 25 v. Hermetic Seal Corp., No. CV 16-05211-BRO-FFMx, 2016 WL 26 5477990, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 2016); Plata v. Target Corp., No. CV 27 16-5190-PSG-MRWx, 2016 WL 6237798, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 28 2016); Gillings v. Time Warner Cable LLC, No. CV 10-5565-AG-RNBx, WAG 2 OW □□ EAINIT □□ INES RAVUUEEPOTEL Aor POI ees AY VI 1} 2011 WL 13273074, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2011). Hensley fails 2 to identify any cases to the contrary. Nor does he provide any 3 compelling reasons why the Court should depart from the Central 4 District’s approach. 5 Adopting the Central District’s approach for this case, the 6 | Court finds Hensley bears the burden of proving the amount in 7 controversy—as a matter of law-cannot exceed $75,000.00. Hensley 8 failed to make this showing. He did not, in either his 3-page 9 motion or 2-page reply brief, identify a rule of law or 10 limitation of damages that would make it “virtually impossible” 11 for more than $75,000.00 to be at issue here. See Amezquita, No. 12 2018 WL 1181675, at *2. Accordingly, the $4,999,999.99 prayer 13 for relief in Hensley’s operative complaint satisfies the amount- 14 in-controversy requirement. Because the parties also satisfy 15 section 1332’s complete diversity requirement, the Court finds it 16 | has diversity jurisdiction over this suit. Hensley’s motion to 17 remand is therefore DENIED. 18 19 Til. ORDER 20 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES 21 Plaintiff’s motion to remand. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: April 20, 2020 24 he Me 25 teiren staves odermacr 7008 26 27 28