Case 2:22-cv-00266-SVW-JC Document 25 Filed 04/20/22 Page1of1 Page ID #:167

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA J S -6

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. 2:22-cv-0266-SVW Date April 20, 2022 Title Kevin Lopez v. Steak N Shake

Present: The Honorable STEPHEN V. WILSON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Paul M. Cruz N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

N/A N/A

Proceedings: ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO REMAND [17] Before the Court is an unopposed motion to remand filed by Plaintiff Kevin Lopez. Plaintiff challenges Defendant Steak N Shake’s (“Defendant”) claim that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Mot. at 4. Where the complaint does not include a particular damages figure, the removing defendant must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, Defendant removed the case because Plaintiff's claimed damages exceeded $25,000 as an unlimited civil case, see Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 88, and because “Plaintiff's Complaint seeks wage loss, loss of use of property, hospital and medical expenses, general damage, property damage, loss of earning capacity.” See Not. Removal, § 20. This allegation, “although attempting to recite some ‘magical incantation,’ neither overcomes the “strong presumption’ against removal jurisdiction, nor satisfies [Defendant’s] burden of setting forth, in the removal petition itself, the underlying facts supporting its assertion that the amount in controversy” exceeds [$75,000].” See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). Moreover, Plaintiff filed a stipulation clarifying that the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. See ECF Though remand is improper where a plaintiff stipulates to a reduced amount in controversy to defeat diversity jurisdiction, see St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 292 (1938), Plaintiff's complaint and stipulation—along with Defendant’s notice of removal—indicate the lack of any basis for Defendant to invoke federal jurisdiction. See Gillette v. Peerless Ins. Co., No. CV 13-03161 DDP RZX, 2013 WL 3983872, at *4 (C.D. Cal. July 31, 2013). For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to remand is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Preparer

PMC

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 1