Berg v. United Air Lines, Inc.
Filing
36
ORDER re 20 Order to Show Cause re: Subject-Matter Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 08/24/2012. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
10
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
9
11
12
13
14
DEBRA BERG,
) Case No. 11-3612-SC
)
Plaintiff,
) ORDER RE: SUBJECT-MATTER
) JURISDICTION
v.
)
)
UNITED AIR LINES, INC., and DOES 1 )
through 20, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
15
16
17
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Debra Berg ("Berg") originally filed this case in
18
California state court, whereupon Defendant United Air Lines, Inc.
19
("United") removed the case to this Court on diversity grounds.
20
ECF No. 1 (notice of removal ("NOR")) Ex. A ("Compl.").
21
1, 2012, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring United
22
to demonstrate that this case satisfies the amount-in-controversy
23
requirement for diversity-based removal jurisdiction.
24
("OSC").
25
be remanded.
26
remand "any time before final judgment" if the district court
27
appears to lack subject-matter jurisdiction)).
28
Court also denied United's pending motion for partial summary
On August
ECF No. 20
If the case did not, the Court explained, the case would
OSC at 3 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (requiring
At that time, the
1
judgment, without prejudice and pending resolution of the
2
jurisdictional question.
3
On August 10, United filed its response to the Court's Order to
4
Show Cause.
5
below, the Court is satisfied that it has subject-matter
6
jurisdiction over the instant case and therefore declines to remand
7
it.
8
resolved, the Court will proceed to ruling on United's motion for
9
partial summary judgment in a separate order concurrently filed.
Id. at 6; see also ECF No. 14 ("MSJ").
ECF No. 21 ("Resp.").1
For the reasons set forth
Additionally, now that the jurisdictional matter has been
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
II.
DISCUSSION
The Court's Order to Show Cause required United to demonstrate
12
13
that the amount in controversy required to support removal
14
jurisdiction on diversity grounds is present in this case.
15
5-6; see also 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 (requirements for,
16
respectively, diversity jurisdiction and removal on diversity
17
grounds).
18
money damages but, consistent with California law, did not specify
19
the sum demanded.
20
recited Berg's alleged injuries without attempting to explain how
21
1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
OSC at
The Court observed that Berg's complaint prayed for
OSC at 3-4.
United's notice of removal merely
In support of its response, United submitted a declaration from
its counsel, Richard G. Grotch, along with several evidentiary
exhibits. ECF No. 21-1 ("Grotch Decl.") Exs. A (excerpt from
transcript of United's deposition of Berg ("Berg Depo.")), B
(United's first set of interrogatories to Berg ("Interrog.") and
Berg's responses ("Interrog. Resp.")), C (part of Berg's billing
records for medical treatment ("Bill. Rec.")), D (excerpts from
Berg's medical records ("Med. Rec.")). The Court acknowledges
United's complaint that the evidence available to it has been
limited by Berg's asserted failure: to serve initial, supplemental,
or expert disclosures; to respond to United's second set of
interrogatories or its first set of requests for admission; or to
produce billing records, an incomplete set of which, Grotch
declares, he has obtained by issuing subpoenas to Berg's health
care providers. Grotch Decl. ¶¶ 4, 6.
2
1
they placed more than $75,000 in controversy.
2
reminded United of the strong presumption against removal
3
jurisdiction and that it bears the burden of establishing the
4
propriety of removal.
5
Id. at 4.
The Court
Id. at 3.
United has responded by offering "summary-judgment-type
6
evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time of
7
removal."
8
377 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d
9
1326, 1336 (5th Cir. 1995)).
Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373,
In cases like this one, where a
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
plaintiff's state court complaint omits the specific sum demanded
11
in compliance with state law, the defendant must demonstrate by a
12
preponderance of the evidence that the complaint places the
13
jurisdictionally required amount in controversy.
14
1446(c)(2); Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404
15
(9th Cir. 1996).
16
satisfied by claims for special and general damages, as well as
17
attorney fees and punitive damages when recoverable by law.
18
Simmons v. PCR Tech., 209 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1031 (N.D. Cal. 2002)
19
(citing Conrad Assoc. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 994 F.
20
Supp. 1196, 1198 (N.D. Cal. 1998)).
21
relevant here, California law does not permit recovery of attorney
22
fees in general tort actions.
23
3:16.1 (citing Cal. Code of Civ. P. § 1026; Gray v. Don Miller &
24
Assocs., Inc., 35 Cal. 3d 498, 506-07 (Cal. 1984)).
25
not rely on attorney fee amounts in its responsive brief.
26
not claimed punitive damages.
27
Therefore the Court declines to consider United's evidence
28
pertaining to punitive damages, see Resp. at 6-7, for the simple
28 U.S.C. §
The amount-in-controversy requirement may be
See
With one exception not
Rutter Cal. Prac. Guide Pers. Inj. §
United does
Berg has
See Compl. at 4 (prayer for relief).
3
1
reason that Berg did not claim any in her complaint, see Compl. at
2
4 (prayer), and therefore the complaint could not have placed them
3
in controversy.
The Court turns now to the alleged injuries giving rise to
4
5
Berg's claims for general and special damages.
The Court stresses
6
that it takes no position here as to whether United is or could be
7
held liable for those injuries.
8
Court is only whether Berg's complaint put more than $75,000 in
9
controversy at the time of removal.
The question presently before the
See Singer, 116 F.3d at 377.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
The Court concludes that it did.
11
extensive, including alleged fractures of both of Berg's feet.
12
Resp. at 5.
13
rise to the possibility of damages for continuing disability, pain,
14
and lost wages.2
15
billing records that it obtained by issuing subpoenas to Berg's
16
health care providers.
17
are incomplete but establish that Berg has received at least
18
$12,476.98 in medical treatment for conditions that she attributes
19
to United's alleged negligence.
20
satisfied that the special damages alleged by Berg more likely than
21
not had placed greater than $75,000 in controversy when United
22
removed the instant case to federal court.
23
///
24
///
25
2
26
27
28
The injuries alleged by Berg are
United persuasively describes how the complaint gave
Id.
Additionally, United has provided copies of
Id. at 4.
United says that these records
Id. at 4-5.
The Court is
Since filing this action, Berg may have limited her injury
claims, for example, by denying that she seeks lost wages. See
Interrog. Resp. ¶¶ 18-19 ("I am not claiming wage loss."). These
post hoc limitations are immaterial to the question of whether
removal was proper, which is determined with reference to the
amount in controversy "at the time of removal." Cf. Singer, 116
F.3d at 377.
4
1
2
III. CONCLUSION
The Court finds that the amount-in-controversy requirement was
3
satisfied at the time that United removed the case from state
4
court.
5
An order addressing United's pending motion for partial summary
6
judgment will be filed concurrently.
7
commence on September 4, 2012 remains set for that date.
Accordingly, the Court retains jurisdiction over this case.
The jury trial scheduled to
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
Dated: August 24, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?
