Arthur Oganesyan v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC et al, No. 2:2014cv05184 - Document 19 (C.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND 11 by Judge Otis D. Wright. (lc). Modified on 9/18/2014 (lc).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Arthur Oganesyan v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC et al Doc. 19 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 United States District Court Central District of California 8 9 10 11 Case No. 2:14-cv-05184-ODW(JCx) ARTHUR OGANESYAN, Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO v. 13 14 AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC; 15 REMAND [11] DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants. 16 I. 17 INTRODUCTION 18 Plaintiff Arthur Oganesyan moves to remand this action to Los Angeles County 19 Superior Court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 11.) Oganesyan 20 argues that Defendant AT&T Mobility Services, LLC failed to establish diversity 21 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds 22 that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is diversity of citizenship. 23 Therefore, this Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand.1 (ECF No. 11.) II. 24 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 25 Oganesyan’s claims arise from the termination of his employment. On May 30, 26 2014, Oganesyan filed this action in state court, alleging two state-law violations: 27 28 1 After carefully considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, the Court deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. Dockets.Justia.com 1 (1) wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, and (2) violation of the Business 2 & Professions Code § 17200. (Not. of Removal Ex. A). He alleges that he worked for 3 AT&T as a customer sales representative for nearly three years prior to being 4 wrongfully terminated in June 2012. (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 14.) 5 Oganesyan alleges that during his employment he suffered from various health 6 conditions of which his employers were aware. (Id. ¶ 11.) He suffered injuries to his 7 knees and ankles that required certain work restrictions. 8 provided him with a stool but asked him not to use it when customers were in the 9 store. (Id.) (Id.) His supervisors On May 30, 2012, he injured his knee while helping a customer. 10 (Id. ¶ 13.) His doctor stated that he needed surgery and possibly three to six months 11 off work. (Id.) He informed his managers of his doctor’s orders and gave them a 12 medical certification that stated his work duties should be light for three weeks. (Id.) 13 On June 7, 2012, AT&T terminated his employment. (Id.¶ 14.) 14 On May 30, 2014, Oganesyan commenced this action in Los Angeles County 15 Superior Court. (Not. of Removal Ex. A.) AT&T removed the action to this Court on 16 July 3, 2014, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 17 (ECF No. 1.) 18 (ECF No. 11.) AT&T timely opposed. (ECF No. 13.) Oganesyan’s Motion is now 19 before the Court for decision. 20 On August 19, 2014, Oganesyan moved to remand this action. III. 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 But 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). The 2 1 party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Durham v. 2 Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Gaus, 980 F.2d 3 at 566). 4 Federal courts have original jurisdiction where an action presents a federal 5 question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 6 A defendant may remove a case from a state court to a federal court pursuant to the 7 federal removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, on the basis of federal question or diversity 8 jurisdiction. To exercise diversity jurisdiction, a federal court must find complete 9 diversity of citizenship among the adverse parties, and the amount in controversy must 10 exceed $75,000, usually exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). IV. 11 DISCUSSION 12 The parties dispute whether the amount in controversy and citizenship 13 requirements for diversity jurisdiction have been satisfied. Oganesyan has not 14 specified the amount of damages he seeks. Therefore, as the proponent of federal 15 jurisdiction, AT&T bears the burden of establishing that the amount in controversy 16 exceeds $75,000 and the citizenship of the parties is diverse. 17 Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F. 3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). See Matheson v. 18 AT&T notes that Oganesyan seeks compensation for lost earnings, emotional 19 distress, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and contends that these damages, in the 20 aggregate, satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. AT&T also provided 21 information to establish diversity of citizenship between the parties. This Court 22 considers each issue in turn. 23 A. 24 25 Amount in Controversy The Court finds that when aggregating all of the damages Oganesyan seeks the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. 26 1. Lost earnings 27 Oganesyan alleges that, “[a]s a proximate result of the wrongful acts of 28 defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer actual, 3 1 consequential, and incidental financial loses, including without limitation, loss of 2 salary and benefits . . . .” (Compl. ¶ 19.) AT&T contends that Oganesyan’s lost 3 earnings from the date of his termination through the date of removal of this action is 4 $65,260. (Opp’n. ¶ 6.) AT&T reached this number by doubling Oganesyan’s annual 5 salary of $32,630.00 because his termination date was approximately two years ago. 6 (Begue Decl. ¶ 5.) The Court agrees with AT&T’s estimate of back pay since it takes 7 into account the total wages Oganesyan would have earned from the date he ceased 8 working for AT&T on June 7, 2012, to the time of removal. Moreover, it is not 9 unreasonable to expect these compensatory damages to exceed $65,260 as this case 10 approaches trial. Simmons v. PCR Tech., 209 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1032 (N.D. 11 Cal. 2002). 12 $75,000 jurisdictional minimum. Therefore, Oganesyan’s claims of lost earnings are $65,260 of the 13 2. 14 AT&T contends that emotional-distress damages and punitive damages will 15 meet the amount in controversy requirement when coupled with compensatory 16 damages. (Not. of Removal ¶ 18.) In determining the amount in controversy, the 17 Court may include the request for punitive damages and emotional-distress damages if 18 a plaintiff may recover them under the applicable law. Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 19 261 F.3d 927, 947 (9th Cir. 2001); Simmons v. PCR Tech., 209 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 20 1033–34 (N.D. Cal. 2002). California law allows the recovery of punitive damages 21 based on FEHA claims, wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional 22 distress. Tameny v. Atl. Richfield Co., 27 Cal. 3d 167, 176 (1980); Simmons, 209 F. 23 Supp. 2d at 1033. To establish emotional-distress and punitive damages, “defendant 24 may introduce evidence of jury verdicts in cases involving analogous facts.” 25 Simmons, 209 F. Supp. 2d at 1033. 26 Emotional-distress and punitive damages AT&T cites several California wrongful-termination cases. (Id.) All the 27 Plaintiffs in these cases received large sums of punitive damages, some totaling over 28 $75,000. See, e.g., Amigon v. Cobe Color Cosmetics, No. BC378685 (Cal. Super. Ct. 4 1 Apr. 15, 2009) ($52,000 in punitive damages for an employee who was terminated 2 after taking medical leave). Oganesyan argues that AT&T made no effort to analogize 3 these cases to his case and disputes that they are analogous. (Mot. 8.) 4 The cases cited by AT&T are analogous to this case. The cases cited by AT&T 5 include awards based on the very same FEHA violation that makes up Oganesyan’s 6 claim: wrongful termination in violation of public policy of an employee who had to 7 take medical leave. Since all the punitive-damage awards that AT&T proffers exceed 8 $50,000, it is plausible that Oganesyan could be awarded a similar amount for his 9 non-economic damages. Combined with the $65,260.00 in lost earnings, Oganesyan’s 10 potential punitive damages meet the amount-in-controversy requirement. 11 3. Attorney’s fees 12 Oganesyan also seeks to recover attorney’s fees. (Compl. 6.) He argues that 13 the Court should only consider attorney’s fees accumulated at the time of removal 14 because anything else would be too speculative. (Mot. 8.) This Court disagrees. So 15 long as an underlying statute authorizes an attorney’s fees award to a successful 16 litigant, attorney’s fees can be taken into consideration when determining the amount 17 in controversy. Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 1998). 18 Therefore, when calculating the amount in controversy the Court does not merely 19 consider those fees which have already incurred; rather, it looks to the amount that can 20 be reasonably estimated. Simmons, 209 F. Supp. 2d at 1035. 21 While AT&T has not provided this Court with enough evidence to surmise how 22 much attorney’s fees will be, the aggregate damages total resulting from lost earnings, 23 emotional distress, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees well exceeds the 24 jurisdictional minimum. 25 B. Diversity 26 It is undisputed that Oganesyan is a citizen of California. Rather, Oganesyan 27 attacks the credibility of Jackie Begue, who is the Senior Paralegal and Assistant 28 Secretary for AT&T Mobility Corporation, the Manager of AT&T Mobility LLC. 5 1 (Mot. 4). Oganesyan claims that Begue is not able to establish the citizenship of 2 AT&T because she lacks personal knowledge. (Id.) AT&T is a Limited Liability 3 Corporation, and “an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are 4 citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th 5 Cir. 2006). A party must list the citizenship of all the members of the LLC in order to 6 sufficiently establish the citizenship of the LLC itself. Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. 7 Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004). 8 9 Begue declared that Defendant is comprised of one member, AT&T Mobility II LLC. (Begue Decl. ¶ 3.) AT&T Mobility II LLC is itself also a limited liability 10 company comprised of four members whose respective states of citizenship are 11 Delaware, Georgia, and Texas. (Begue Supp. Decl. ¶ 5.) Begue outlined her role as 12 the Senior Paralegal and Assistant Secretary for the Court. (Id. ¶ 4.) She explained 13 that it is within the scope of her employment to have knowledge of company records 14 regarding where the members of AT&T Mobility are incorporated and their principal 15 places of business. (Id.) The Court finds that the information provided by AT&T and 16 Begue is more than sufficient to establish complete diversity between parties. V. 17 CONCLUSION 18 For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that there is subject-matter 19 jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Accordingly, the Court DENIES 20 Oganesyan’s Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 11.) 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 September 18, 2014 24 25 26 ____________________________________ OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
