Janieshonna Lewis v. Aramark Healthcare Support Services, LLC et al
Filing
8
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. Having carefully considered the papers filed in conjunction with Aramark's Notice, the Court concludes that Aramark has failed to meet its burden on removal o f establishing this Court's subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. Case is remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case number BC513165 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (mailed 8/21/13) (Attachments: # 1 Transmittal Letter CV 103) (lom)
<![CDATA[
1
2
JS-6
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JANIESHONNA LEWIS,
12
13
14
v.
Case No. 2:13-cv-05991-ODW (Ex)
Plaintiff,
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO LOS
ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
ARAMARK HEALTHCARE SUPPORT
SERVS., LLC, and Does 1100, inclusive,
Defendants.
15
16
17
On August 15, 2013, Defendant Aramark Healthcare Support Services removed
18
this action to federal court.
19
conjunction with Aramark’s Notice, the Court concludes that Aramark has failed to
20
meet its burden on removal of establishing this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction
21
over this case. The Court therefore REMANDS this case to the Los Angeles Superior
22
Court.
Having carefully considered the papers filed in
23
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject-matter
24
jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. U.S.
25
Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.
26
375, 377 (1994). A suit filed in state court may be removed to federal court only if the
27
federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
28
However, courts strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction, and
1
“[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal
2
in the first instance.”
3
(emphasis added). The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal
4
jurisdiction. Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir. 2006).
5
Federal courts have original jurisdiction where an action presents a federal
6
question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or where diversity of citizenship exists under
7
28 U.S.C. § 1332.
8
complete diversity among the adverse parties, and the amount in controversy must
9
exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Where a
10
plaintiff does not specify a particular damages figure in the state-court complaint, the
11
removing defendant must provide evidence establishing that it is “more likely than
12
not” that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Sanchez v. Monumental Life
13
Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). Evidence a court may consider includes
14
“facts presented in the removal petition as well as any summary-judgment-type
15
evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time of removal.” Matheson v.
16
Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003).
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)
To exercise diversity jurisdiction, a federal court must find
17
Additionally, in determining the amount in controversy, the Court may include
18
the request for punitive damages and emotional distress damages if they are
19
recoverable under the applicable law. Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 947
20
(9th Cir. 2001); Simmons v. PCR Tech., 209 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1033–34 (N.D. Cal.
21
2002). California law allows the recovery of punitive damages based on claims for
22
violations of FEHA, wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional
23
distress. Tameny v. Atl. Richfield Co., 27 Cal. 3d 167, 176 (1980); Simmons, 209 F.
24
Supp. 2d at 1033. To establish emotional distress and punitive damages, “defendant
25
may introduce evidence of jury verdicts in cases involving analogous facts.”
26
Simmons, 209 F. Supp. 2d at 1033.
27
Finally, in ordinary diversity cases, a request for attorney’s fees cannot be
28
included in the jurisdictional amount unless an underlying statute authorizes an award
2
1
of attorney’s fees. Lowdermilk, 479 F.3d 994, 1000 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Galt G/S v.
2
JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1155–56 (9th Cir. 1998)). But even when including
3
attorneys’ fees, a court “cannot base [its] jurisdiction on Defendant’s speculation and
4
conjecture.”
5
overcome “the strong presumption against removal jurisdiction” by “setting forth, in
6
the removal petition itself, the underlying facts supporting its assertion that the
7
amount in controversy exceeds” the required $75,000. Gaus, 980 F.2d at 567.
Lowdermilk, 479 F.3d at 1002.
Ultimately, the defendant must
8
Lewis’s state-court Complaint did not specify the damages she seeks.
9
Therefore, as the proponent of federal jurisdiction, Aramark bore the burden on
10
removal to establish by specific facts or summary-judgment-like evidence, or both,
11
that it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 in this
12
case. Aramark has not met this burden.
13
At the time of removal, Aramark calculated that lost wages totaled
14
approximately $30,960. (Notice of Removal 16.) Thus, Aramark must demonstrate
15
that the sum of the remaining damages satisfies the jurisdictional minimum. Aramark
16
is correct that the Court may consider the aggregate value of claims for lost wages,
17
emotional-distress damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees to determine the
18
jurisdictional amount. But Aramark does not present any “underlying facts supporting
19
its assertion that the amount in controversy exceed[ed]” $75,000, Gaus, 980 F.2d at
20
567. Instead, Aramark merely asserts that “[w]ere Plaintiff to prevail in this action,
21
the damages could exceed $75,000,” because Lewis alleges twelve causes of action
22
and seeks to recover several categories of damages. (Notice of Removal 15 (emphasis
23
added).) Aramark’s allegations regarding punitive and emotional-distress damages,1
24
and attorney’s fees2 are similarly anemic.
25
26
27
28
1
“In determining whether the jurisdictional minimum is met, courts consider all recoverable
damages, including emotional distress damages.” (Notice of Removal 17 (citing Hunt v. Wash. State
Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 33, 34748 (1977).)
2
Aramark correctly states that “Courts have held that an award of attorneys’ fees, if such fees are
authorized may be considered for purposes of calculating the amount in controversy. (Notice of
3
1
Aramark’s bald citations to cases that simply authorize courts to attorneys’ fees
2
and emotional distress damages in calculating the jurisdictional minimum are entirely
3
insufficient to meet Aramark’s burden to establish the amount in controversy by a
4
preponderance of the evidence. Aramark must prove sufficiently analogous facts
5
supporting the jurisdictional amount. Simmons, 209 F. Supp. 2d at 1031.
6
For example, in its discussion of punitive damages Aramark merely asserts that
7
“California juries have returned verdicts with substantial punitive damage awards in
8
employment discrimination actions.” (Notice of Removal 18 (citing Simmons, 209 F.
9
Supp 2d at 1029).) But Aramark points to no analogous underlying facts in Simmons
10
or any other case that demonstrate that a substantial punitive damage award may
11
similarly be awarded in this action.
12
Absent evidence of jury verdicts in other cases and explanation of how those
13
cases represent conduct analogous to the conduct Aramark allegedly directed at
14
Lewis, the Court can only speculate whether Lewis could draw similar damages
15
awards here sufficient to meet the amount in controversy required to sustain this
16
Court’s exercise of diversity jurisdiction. The failure to provide the Court with any
17
examples of analogous jury verdicts renders Aramak’s citation to those cases
18
meaningless.
Because the Court finds that Aramark has not met its burden on removal to
19
20
establish that the amount in controversy in this case exceeds $75,000, the Court must
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
28
Removal 19 (citing Galt G/S, 142 F.3d at 1155–56.) But Aramark fails to offer any facts relevant to
this particular case.
4
1
reject federal jurisdiction over this action. The Court therefore VACATES the
2
October 28 scheduling conference in this matter (ECF No. 7) and REMANDS this
3
case to the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The Clerk of Court shall close this
4
case.
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
August 21, 2013
7
8
9
____________________________________
HON. OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
]]>
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?
