1 2 O 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 2:23-cv-03571-MEMF-MAR 11 ZULMA YACENIA RAUDA DE AYALA, an

individual, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND Plaintiff, [ECF NO. 12] 13 v. 14

15 AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., and DOES 1 to 16 50, Inclusive, 17 Defendants.

18 19 Before the Court is a Motion to Remand filed by Plaintiff Zulma Yacenia Rauda De Ayala. 20 ECF No. 12. The Court deems this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. 21 R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L. R. 7-15. For the reasons stated herein, the Court DENIES the Motion 22 to Remand. 23 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 I. Factual Background1 2 On July 28, 2020, Plaintiff Zulma Yacenia Rauda De Ayala (“Ayala”) was injured as a result 3 of unsafe conditions at Defendant American Airlines, Inc.’s (“American’s”) property. See Compl. at 4 5–6. 5 II. Procedural History 6 Ayala filed suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court on July 26, 2021. See Compl. Ayala 7 brings two causes of action: premises liability and general negligence. See id. The Complaint does 8 not specify how much Ayala seeks in damages. See id. Defendants filed an Answer in Los Angeles 9 County Court on September 21, 2023. See ECF No. 1-3 10 On May 4, 2023, Ayala served American with a Statement of Damages. See ECF No. 1-4 11 (“Statement of Damages” or “SOD”). The Statement of Damages states that Ayala seeks $395,000 in 12 total damages ($100,000 for past pain and suffering, $200,000 for future pain and suffering, $50,000 13 for emotional distress, $25,000 for medical expenses to date, and $20,000 for future medical 14 expenses). See id. 15 On May 10, 2023, American removed the action to this Court. See ECF No. 1 (“Notice of 16 Removal” or “NOR”). American based its removal on diversity of citizenship, noting that American 17 is incorporated in Delaware and based in Texas while Ayala is a citizen of California, and that Ayala 18 seeks more than $75,000 in damages. See NOR ¶¶ 1, 7–11. 19 Ayala filed her Motion to Remand on June 9, 2023, alongside a declaration with various 20 exhibits. ECF No. 12 (“Motion” or “Mot.”); ECF No. 12-2 (“Moreno Declaration” or “Moreno 21 Decl.”). American filed an Opposition to the Motion on September 14, 2023. ECF No. 19 22 (“Opposition” or “Opp’n”). Ayala filed a Reply in support of the Motion on September 27, 2023. 23 ECF No. 20 (“Reply”). 24 25 / / / 26

27 1 The factual allegations included in this section are taken from Plaintiff Zulma Yacenia Rauda De Ayala’s Complaint. See ECF No. 1-1 (“Complaint” or “Compl.”). The Court includes these allegations only as 28 1 III. Applicable Law 2 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” and can only hear cases where there is a 3 valid basis for federal jurisdiction. Richardson v. United States, 943 F.2d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 One possible basis for jurisdiction, and the only one relevant to this order, is diversity jurisdiction. 5 See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (“Section 1332”). Diversity jurisdiction requires “requires complete diversity 6 of citizenship and an amount in controversy greater than $75,000.” Canela v. Costco Wholesale 7 Corp., 971 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir. 2020). 8 When a plaintiff files an action in state court over which federal courts might have 9 jurisdiction, the defendant may remove the action to federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446. A notice of 10 removal may be filed within 30 days after the receipt of “an amended pleading, motion, order or 11 other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become 12 removable.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3). If the plaintiff subsequently challenges the removal, the burden 13 is on the removing defendant to prove that removal is proper.” See Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. 14 Est. of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1006–07 (9th Cir. 2010). There is a “strong 15 presumption” against removal jurisdiction. See id. at 1007. 16 Where a state-court complaint is unclear or ambiguous as to the amount in controversy,2 the 17 defendant must prove by preponderance of the evidence that there is federal jurisdiction. 18 Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007). “Under this burden, the 19 defendant must provide evidence establishing that it is ‘more likely than not’ that the amount in 20 controversy exceeds” the jurisdictional threshold. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 21 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Guglielmino, 506 F.3d at 699 (quoting this language from 22 Sanchez). The amount in controversy is “simply an estimate of the total amount in dispute,” and not 23 “a prospective assessment of defendant's liability.” Lewis v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 24 400 (9th Cir. 2010). A judicial admission by the plaintiff that the amount in controversy is over the 25 threshold is generally sufficient for federal court jurisdiction. Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. 26

27 2 There are slightly different standards where the state-court complaint is not ambiguous. See Guglielmino, 506 F.3d at 699 (describing “three different burdens of proof which might be placed on a removing defendant 28 1 Co., 116 F.3d 373, 376 (9th Cir. 1997). The district court has discretion as to whether to accept such 2 a judicial admission. See id. A defendant who seeks to remove a state court action “faces an uphill 3 battle,” and should generally “conduct discovery in state court before removal, and remove upon 4 receipt of a pleading, discovery response or other paper now disclosing the basis for a removable 5 claim.” Prac. Guide: Fed. Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2023), Ch. 2D-4 ¶ 2:2386. 6 IV. Discussion 7 Ayala’s sole argument is that American failed to show that the amount in controversy is over 8 $75,000. See Mot. The Court finds that American met its burden of showing this by preponderance 9 of evidence. Accordingly, Ayala’s Motion will be denied. 10 Ayala’s complaint is ambiguous as to the amount of damages. See Compl. Thus, American 11 “must provide evidence establishing that it is ‘more likely than not’ that the amount in controversy 12 exceeds” $75,000. See Sanchez, 102 F.3d at 404. To meet this burden, American’s Notice of 13 Removal cited the Statement of Damages Ayala provided. See NOR; see also SOD. The Statement 14 of Damages is discovery device required by the California Code of Civil Procedure. See Cal. Code 15 Civ. P. § 425.11(b) (“in an action to recover damages for personal injury or wrongful death, the 16 defendant may at any time request a statement setting forth the nature and amount of damages being 17 sought. . . . [the plaintiff] shall serve a responsive statement as to the damages.”). 18 The Statement of Damages clearly states that Ayala seeks a total of $395,000. See SOD. It is 19 signed by Ayala’s counsel. See id. The Court finds that the Statement of Damages is a judicial 20 admission, and the Court will accept Ayala’s representations as to how much damages Ayala seeks. 21 See Singer, 116 F.3d at 376. Although the facts here are slightly different than those in Singer, where 22 the plaintiff’s counsel admitted in open court that the plaintiff sought more than the threshold 23 amount of damages, this distinction makes no difference. See id. Ayala admitted that she seeks 24 $395,000. See SOD. This admission is sufficient for American to meet its burden of showing that the 25 amount in controversy—an “estimate of the total amount in dispute”—is more likely than over 26 $75,000. See Lewis, 627 F.3d at 400 (9th Cir. 2010). 27 Ayala argues that American’s estimate is “conclusory,” that the Statement of Damages is 28 “speculative,” and that American has presented no admissible summary-judgment-type evidence. 1 | But it did—the Statement of Damages, which this Court treats as an admission. It is appropriate for a 2 | defendant to remove based on information learned from the plaintiff in discovery, see Fed. Civ. Pro. 3 || Before Trial, Ch. 2D-4 § 2:2386, and this is exactly what American did here. Ayala stated in a 4 | discovery response signed by her counsel that she seeks $395,000—American is not speculating or 5 || making conclusory assertions when American claims that $395,000 is at stake. 6 Despite the strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, the Court finds that American 7 | met its burden. See Geographic Expeditions, 599 F.3d at 1006-07. Because Ayala made clear that 8 || she seeks well more than $75,000, American’s removal of the action was proper. 9 V. Conclusion 10 For the reasons stated herein, Ayala’s Motion to Remand is DENIED. 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: October 6, 2023 > ° 16 MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28