Arturo Navarro v. Gruma Corporation

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff contends that defendants have failed to show diversity of citizenship because the amount in controversy does not exceed the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000. (See Dkt. 27-1, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Remand [] (“Memo”) at 3-10). Defendants claim that the amount in controversy is met based on: (1) plaintiff’s 25% share of the civil penalties recovered for violations committed against him personally, (Dkt. 1, NOR at ¶¶ 19- 23); (2) an enhancement award of $5,000, (id. at ¶ 24); and (3) attorney’s fees. (Id. at ¶¶ 25-35). With respect to attorney’s fees, defendants contend that $66,000 is “a reasonable sum for attorney’s fees in determining the amount in controversy.” (Dkt. 1, NOR at ¶ 34); (see Dkt. 3, Declaration of Dan M. Forman in Support of [] Notice of Removal (“Forman Decl.”) at ¶ 7) (“[I]t would be reasonable for the Court to use $66,000 as an estimate of the attorney’s fees Plaintiff individually places in controversy because that amount is likely to be incurred to prosecute Plaintiff’s claims for the recovery of individual paid wages and statutory penalties, and to establish that he is aggrieved and thus a…