Martha Perez v. Baxter Healthcare Corporation et al, No. 2:2012cv08075 - Document 17 (C.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REMAND 9 by Judge Otis D Wright, II (lc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Martha Perez v. Baxter Healthcare Corporation et al Doc. 17 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 MARTHA PEREZ, v. Case No. 2:12-cv-08075-ODW (SSx) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND [9] BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORP.; and DOES 1–20, inclusive, Defendants. 15 I. 16 INTRODUCTION 17 On September 19, 2012, Defendant Baxter Healthcare Corporation removed 18 this disability-discrimination and failure-to-accommodate action to this Court. 19 Plaintiff Martha Perez now moves to remand the case to Los Angeles Superior Court, 20 arguing that Baxter has failed to establish the amount in controversy required for this 21 Court to exercise diversity jurisdiction. (ECF No. 9.) Having carefully considered the 22 papers filed in support of and in opposition to the instant Motion, the Court deems the 23 matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L. R. 7-15. 24 The Court concludes that it has diversity jurisdiction over this case and therefore 25 DENIES Perez’s Motion. 26 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 27 On June 13, 2012, Perez filed this action in state court, alleging two violations 28 of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Cal. Gov. Code Dockets.Justia.com 1 §§ 12900–96: (1) disability discrimination; and (2) failure to accommodate. (Notice 2 of Removal Ex. A.) Perez contends that after being removed from her position as a 3 plate reader on March 14, 2012, Baxter placed Perez on family medical leave, which 4 Perez did not consent to or request. (Mot. 3.) She also asserts that Baxter gave her 60 5 days to find alternative employment within the company; if Perez failed to do so, 6 Baxter would terminate her. (Id.) Despite Perez’s wrist and arm injury—which 7 restricted her from completing tasks such as “lifting any item over 10 pounds, heavy 8 pushing and pulling over [ten] pounds, any over the shoulder work on her left side, 9 and any repetitive pinching and grabbing”—Baxter then offered her a new job 10 opportunity as a quality coordinator. (Id. 4.) This new position violated Perez’s 11 medical restrictions because it required her to carry and lift 12-pound binders multiple 12 times a day. (Id.) Perez argues that Baxter’s actions constitute discrimination based 13 on physical disability and medical condition, thus causing her monetary damages, 14 economic losses, mental anguish, humiliation, and physical and emotional distress. 15 (Notice of Removal Ex. A.) 16 punitive damages, interest on the sum of damages awarded, attorney’s fees, and costs. 17 (Mot. 4–5.) Baxter filed its answer to Perez’s Complaint on September 18, 2012, and 18 subsequently removed this action to this Court on September 19, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) 19 Perez moved to remand on October 8, 2012. (ECF No. 9.) III. 20 Regarding damages, Perez seeks general damages, LEGAL STANDARD 21 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject-matter 22 jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. U.S. 23 Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 24 375, 377 (1994). A suit filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the 25 federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 26 However, courts strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction, and 27 “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal 28 in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) 2 1 (emphasis added). The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal 2 jurisdiction. Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir. 2006). 3 Federal courts have original jurisdiction where an action presents a federal 4 question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or where diversity of citizenship exists under 5 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 6 complete diversity among the adverse parties, and the amount in controversy must 7 exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Where a 8 plaintiff does not specify a particular damages figure in the state-court complaint, the 9 removing defendant must provide evidence establishing that it is “more likely than 10 not” that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Sanchez v. Monumental Life 11 Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). Evidence a court may consider includes 12 “facts presented in the removal petition as well as any summary-judgment-type 13 evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time of removal.” Matheson v. 14 Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). To exercise diversity jurisdiction, a federal court must find 15 Additionally, in determining the amount in controversy, the Court may include 16 the request for punitive damages and emotional distress damages if they are 17 recoverable under the applicable law. Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 947 18 (9th Cir. 2001); Simmons v. PCR Tech., 209 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1033–34 (N.D. Cal. 19 2002). California law allows the recovery of punitive damages based on claims for 20 violations of FEHA, wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional 21 distress. Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 27 Cal. 3d 167, 176 (1980); Simmons, 209 22 F. Supp. 2d at 1033. 23 “defendant may introduce evidence of jury verdicts in cases involving analogous 24 facts.” Simmons, 209 F. Supp. 2d at 1033. To establish emotional distress and punitive damages, 25 Finally, in ordinary diversity cases, a request for attorney’s fees cannot be 26 included in the jurisdictional amount unless an underlying statute authorizes an award 27 of attorney’s fees. Lowdermilk, 479 F.3d 994, 1000 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Galt G/S v. 28 JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1155–56 (9th Cir. 1998)). But even when including 3 1 attorneys’ fees, a court “cannot base [its] jurisdiction on Defendant’s speculation and 2 conjecture.” 3 overcome “the strong presumption against removal jurisdiction” by “setting forth, in 4 the removal petition itself, the underlying facts supporting its assertion that the 5 amount in controversy exceeds” the required $75,000. Gaus, 980 F.2d at 567. Lowdermilk, 479 F.3d at 1002. IV. 6 Ultimately, the defendant must DISCUSSION 7 Perez’s state-court Complaint did not specify the amount of damages she seeks. 8 Therefore, as the proponent of federal jurisdiction, Baxter must establish by facts or 9 summary-judgment-like evidence that it is more likely than not that the amount in 10 controversy exceeds $75,000 in this case.1 Baxter argues that the total of Perez’s lost 11 earnings, emotional distress, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees is greater than the 12 amount in controversy required for diversity jurisdiction. (ECF No. 12.) The Court 13 considers each category of damages in turn. 14 A. Lost Earnings 15 Baxter alleges that Perez’s lost earnings alone exceed $75,000. (Notice of 16 Removal ¶¶ 11–12.) Baxter sets forth a figure of $77,555.29, which includes both 17 $25,851.78 of back pay and $51,703.51 of front pay. (Id.) These numbers are based 18 upon Perez’s annual salary of $51,703.51. (Id. ¶ 12.) The Court agrees with Baxter’s 19 estimate of back pay since it takes into account the total wages Perez would have 20 earned had she not been put on family medical leave on March 14, 2012. However, it 21 is unclear why Baxter assumes Perez would seek a year’s worth of front pay. While 22 Baxter provides the Court with numerous cases where plaintiffs have received well 23 over $75,000 in future economic damages, it fails to point to any evidence in the 24 record indicating that Perez will seek a similar jury award. (Opp’n 6–10.) It is 25 conceivable that Perez could request only a few months of front pay, with each month 26 27 28 1 It is undisputed that the parties to this action are diverse. (Opp’n 5.) Perez is a citizen of California, while Baxter is a citizen of Illinois. (Notice of Removal Ex. A.) Therefore, the amount in controversy is the sole issue this Court must resolve before exercising diversity jurisdiction. 4 1 totaling $4,308.78. For example, if Perez seeks eleven months of front pay, she will 2 request $47,396.58. Adding this number to Baxter’s proposed back pay amount will 3 bring Perez shy of the more-than-$75,000 jurisdictional requirement. As a result, 4 Baxter’s lost-earnings argument is insufficient to persuade the Court that this case 5 merits diversity jurisdiction. 6 B. Emotional Distress 7 Baxter also tries to establish the requisite amount in controversy by analogizing 8 Perez’s emotional distress damages to damages awarded in similar situations. (Opp’n 9 7–12.) In its Opposition, Baxter refers to several California cases in which injured 10 and often terminated employees sued their employers for disability discrimination and 11 failure to accommodate. (Id.) All these plaintiffs received non-economic damages 12 totaling over $75,000. See, e.g., Morales v. L.A. Cnty. Metro. Transp. Auth., No. 13 BC339557 (L.A. Super. Ct. Aug. 19, 2008) (awarding terminated bus driver with 14 carpal tunnel syndrome $300,000 for past non-economic damages and $1,000,000 for 15 future economic damages); Ismen v. Beverly Hospital, No. BC366198 (L.A. Super. 16 Ct. Aug. 13, 2008) (awarding $113,100 in emotional distress damages to terminated 17 medical records clerk whose condition prevented her from heavy lifting); Cortes v. 18 Montebello Unified Sch. Dist., No. BC359419 (L.A. Super. Ct. May 27, 2008) 19 (awarding $82,000 in past non-economic damages to injured teacher after the school 20 district insisted she attempt to teach despite being restricted to a sedentary position). 21 The plaintiffs in these cases were unable to perform their assigned jobs because 22 of their medical condition and suffered damages as a result, which is exactly what 23 Perez alleges here. Like the plaintiffs in Morales, Ismen, and Cortes, Perez could not 24 perform the tasks required of her as a quality coordinator. (Notice of Removal Ex. A.) 25 Consequently, she endured “humiliation, mental anguish, and physical and emotional 26 distress.” (Id.) Since all of the non-economic damage awards Baxter proffers exceed 27 $75,000—indeed, the smallest amount Baxter provides to the Court is $82,000—it is 28 plausible that Perez could be awarded a similar amount for her emotional distress 5 1 damages. (Opp’n 12.) Combined with the $25,851.78 figure Baxter provides 2 regarding Perez’s back pay, Baxter’s potential damages for emotional distress 3 overcome the presumption against removal. As such, the Court need not look at 4 whether Perez’s punitive damages and attorney’s fees also exceed the amount in 5 controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. V. 6 CONCLUSION 7 Baxter establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in 8 controversy exceeds $75,000. Therefore, the Court DENIES Lopez’s Motion to 9 Remand. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 October 31, 2012 14 15 16 ____________________________________ HON. OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
