East El v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., No. 3:2013cv01666 - Document 24 (D. Or. 2014)
Court Description: OPINION & ORDER: Defendant fails to establish that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this matter. Accordingly, this case is dismissed and remanded to state court. See 3-page opinion & order. Signed on 3/21/2014 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON KAON-JABBAR EAST EL, Plaintiff, Case No. 3:13-cv-01666 OPINION & ORDER v. 24 HOUR FITNESS USA, INC., Defendant. Kaon-Jabbar East El 4788 N. Lombard St. #5 Portland, OR 97203 Pro se Plaintiff Daniel L. Boyer Elizabeth A. Falcone OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART P.C. 222 SW Columbia St., Suite 1500 Portland, OR 97210 Attorneys for Defendant 1 - OPINION & ORDER HERNANDEZ, District Judge: Kaon-Jabbar East El filed this action in Multnomah County Circuit Court alleging whistleblower retaliation, wage claim retaliation, failure to pay wages, wrongful discharge, and failure to accommodate under Oregon law. Defendant 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. removed this case based on diversity jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, this case is remanded because Defendant fails to establish that the case in controversy exceeds $75,000. DISCUSSION Removal is proper only where the federal courts have original jurisdiction over an action brought in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), a federal court has original jurisdiction over an action only where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the action is between parties of diverse citizenship. Courts strictly construe . . . [28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)] against removal jurisdiction and [f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Prize Frize, Inc. v. Matrix, Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). A plaintiff is master of her complaint and can plead to avoid federal jurisdiction. Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 700 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A party removing an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) has a particularly heavy burden if the complaint seeks less than the required $75,000 jurisdictional amount in controversy and must prove with legal certainty that the jurisdictional amount is met. Id.; see also Salang v. CarMax Auto Superstores Cal., LLC, No. 13-CV-870 BEN (WVG), 2014 WL 334466, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 2014) ( When a state court complaint 2 - OPINION & ORDER affirmatively alleges that the amount in controversy is less than $75,000, the party seeking removal must prove to a legal certainty that the threshold is met. ) (Citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff s state-court complaint alleges only $42,711.87 in damages. The damages Plaintiff seeks are comprised of emotional distress totaling $40,000, lost wages totaling $155.87, and penalties totaling $2,556.00. Defendant contends that because Plaintiff also seeks back pay, front pay, lost benefits, and out-of-pocket expenses, the actual amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Specifically, Defendant calculates back pay as totaling $26,412 and asserts that once front pay, lost benefits, out-of-pocket expenses, and attorney fees are also included, the amount in controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional threshold of $75,000. Defendant s speculative and conclusory statements fall short of establishing with legal certainty that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Defendant provides, at most, that the amount in controversy totals $69,123.87. Indeed, Defendant does not even attempt to provide the court with the damages arising out of Plaintiff s front pay, lost benefits, out-of-pocket expenses, or attorney fees. In short, Defendant fails to meet its burden of establishing with legal certainty that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Defendant fails to establish that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this matter. Accordingly, this case is dismissed and remanded to state court. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this day of ____________, 2014. MARCO A. HERNANDEZ United States District Judge 3 - OPINION & ORDER
]]>
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.
