Chavez-Rangel v. Amin ( 2024 )

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 MARCO A. CHAVEZ-RANGEL, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01008-MMD-BNW 7 Plaintiffs, ORDER 8 v. 9 ALI HASSAN AMIN, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 This case comes before the Court through a petition for removal filed by 13 Defendants Ali Hassan Amin and CEVA Freight, LLC. (ECF No. 1 (“Petition”).) Plaintiffs 14 Marco Chavez-Rangel and Sydney Rangel filed this action in the Eighth Judicial District 15 Court in Clark County, Nevada, after an alleged vehicular collision with a truck driven by 16 Amin in California. (ECF No. 1 at 8.) Plaintiffs assert claims of negligence, respondeat 17 superior, and negligent hiring and supervision. (Id. at 9-11.) 18 Defendants removed the action on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. See 28 19 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441. Based on the Court’s review of the petition, questions exist as to 20 whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear this claim. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. 21 v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[T]he district court had a 22 duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, 23 whether the parties raised the issue or not.”). Specifically, the Court is concerned that 24 the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement has not been met. 25 A defendant’s notice of removal must contain “a plausible allegation that the 26 amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin 27 Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). Though a notice of removal 28 “need not contain evidentiary submissions,” id. at 84, a defendant may be required to 1 || show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount-in-controversy requirement 2 || has been satisfied if the Court questions the removing defendant’s allegations as to the 3 || amount, see Acad. of Country Music v. Cont’ Cas. Co., 991 F.3d 1059, 1068-69 (9th 4 || Cir. 2021) (citing Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott, 936 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2019)). 5 It is not obvious from the Complaint, the Petition, or any other files in the docket 6 || that the amount-in-controversy requirement has been met. (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1.) The 7 || Petition claims that it is “apparent on the face of the Complaint that each plaintiff seeks 8 || recovery of an amount in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars” because they seek 9 || “compensation for past and future general damages, past and future medical and pain 10 || and suffering.” (ECF No. 1 at 2.) But the Complaint only describes the general and 11 || special damages suffered by Plaintiffs as being in excess of $15,000. (/d. at 12.) At 12 || most, this appears to add up to a minimum of $60,000 in total requested relief, as 13 || Plaintiffs’ first cause of action is being brought against both defendants but their second 14 || and third causes of action are employer liability claims brought only against CEVA 15 || Freight. (/d. at 9-12.) Defendants offer no additional explanation as to how they reached 16 || asum in excess of $75,000. 17 For these reasons, Defendants are directed to show cause as to why this action 18 || should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 19 It is therefore ordered that Defendants show cause in writing why this case 20 || should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by June 18, 2024. 21 || Plaintiffs may file a response by June 25, 2024. 22 DATED THIS 4" day of June 2024. 23 ( 24 25 MIRANDA M. DU 36 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28