Opinion
2:24-cv-05857-JLS-SSC
08-08-2024
Alma Zerega v. Costco Wholesale Corporation et al
Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO STATE COURT
CAFA requires, among other things, that the amount in controversy “exceed[] the sum or value of $5,000,000.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). “A defendant's notice of removal to federal court must ‘contain[] a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal,” including the amount in controversy. Moe v. GEICO Indem. Co., 73 F.4th 757, 761 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 87, (2014)). Where the plaintiff's state-court complaint includes a damages demand, that amount, if made in good faith, “shall be deemed to be the amount in controversy.” Id. § 1446(c)(2). Where the plaintiff's complaint “does not specify the damages sought, the defendant ordinarily may satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement by making a plausible assertion of the amount at issue in its notice of removal.” Moe, 73 F.4th at 761. “[T]he defendant's amount-in-controversy allegation should be accepted when not contested by the plaintiff or questioned by the court.” Id. (quoting Dart, 574 U.S. at 87).
Here, Plaintiff's complaint does not specify the damages sought, so Defendant was obligated to plausibly allege the amount in controversy. (See Compl., Doc. 1-1, Ex. A.) In its Notice of Removal, Defendant asserts that it ascertained that this action was removable only upon Plaintiff's June 18, 2024 deposition. (See NOR, Doc. 1 ¶¶ 3, 8.) But other than noting what categories of damages Plaintiff seeks, Defendant does not indicate what facts revealed at the deposition make it plausible that the amount-in-controversy in this slip-and-fall case exceeds $75,000. (See id. ¶ 10.)
Therefore, the Court sua sponte questions whether the amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied here. See Moe, 73 F.4th at 761-62. Defendant bears “the burden to show that the amount-in-controversy requirement is met by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at 762 (emphasis added).
Defendant is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, no later than seven (7) days from the date of this Order, why the Court should not remand this action to Los Angeles County Superior Court. Plaintiff has seven (7) days thereafter to submit any response. No further briefing is permitted. Following submission of the parties' briefing, which shall not exceed five (5) pages, the matter will be deemed under submission and the Court will thereafter issue an order.