Virgincita B Calzada v. Sunrise Senior Living Services Inc et al
Filing
14
ORDER REMANDING by Judge R. Gary Klausner remanding case to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case number BC464261 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 Transmittal Letter) (rne) Modified on 9/30/2011 (rne). Certified Copies of docket sheet and Order to Remand sent to State Court (see document for further details).
<![CDATA[
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 11-06857-RGK (AJWx)
Title
CALZADA v. SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING SERVICES INC.
Present: The
Honorable
Date
September 30, 2011
R. GARY KLAUSNER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Sharon L. Williams
Not Reported
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present
Not Present
Proceedings:
(IN CHAMBERS) Order Remanding Action to State Court
On January 24, 2011, Virgincita Calzada (“Plaintiff”), filed suit against Sunrise Senior Living Services,
Inc. and Emeritus Corp. (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on July
20, 2011. In her Complaint, Plaintiff assert state claims relating to Defendants’ failure to pay wages, allow for
meal breaks, keep accurate wage statements, discrimination under California Government Code § 12900 et seq,
and wrongful termination. All of Plaintiff’s claims arise under state law.
Defendants filed a notice of removal with this court on August 19, 2011 alleging jurisdiction based on
diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, district courts shall have original jurisdiction over any civil action in which
the parties are citizens of different states and the action involves an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000.
After a plaintiff files a case in state court, the defendant attempting to remove the case to federal court bears the
burden of proving the amount in controversy requirement has been met. Lowdermilk v. United States Bank Nat’l
Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998 (9th Cir. 2007). If the complaint does not allege the amount in controversy, the
removing defendant must supply this jurisdictional fact in the Notice of Removal. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d
564, 566-567 (9th Cir. 1992). Defendants have failed to make this requisite showing. Defendants point to a letter
by Plaintiff’s counsel estimating damages at $66,806.80 for some of her claims. Defendants attempt to argue that
damages from the remainder of Plaintiff’s claim must make the total damages exceed $75,000. However, such
arguments are not sufficient to allow for removal on the basis of diversity.
In light of the foregoing, the Court hereby remands the action to state court for all further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (10/08)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
slw
Page 1 of 1
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
