I. Background

Plaintiff alleges that, in November 2023, Defendant terminated her after she requested bereavement leave following the death of her brother. Complaint (“Compl.”) (Dkt 8-7) ¶ 4. Plaintiff then filed this lawsuit, alleging four violations of California employment law. See id. ¶¶ 6-11. Defendant removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction. See generally Notice of Removal (“Not.”) (Dkt. 1). The Court disagrees.

II. Legal Standard

“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Removal of a case from state court to federal court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441, which provides in

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:24-cv-00960-DOC-ADS Date: May 22, 2024 Page 2

relevant part that “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed . . . to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441. This statute “is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction,” and the party seeking removal “bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.” Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988) (emphasis added) (citations omitted). Federal diversity jurisdiction requires that the parties be citizens of different states and that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). For diversity jurisdiction purposes, a corporation is “deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). The presence of any single plaintiff from the same state as any single defendant destroys “complete diversity” and strips the federal courts of original jurisdiction over the matter. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005).

Generally, a removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy satisfies the jurisdictional threshold. Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2008). If the complaint affirmatively alleges an amount in controversy greater than $75,000, the jurisdictional requirement is “presumptively satisfied.” Id. In that situation, a plaintiff who then tries to defeat removal must prove to a “legal certainty” that a recovery of more than $75,000 is impossible. St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288-89 (1938); Crum v. Circus Enters., 231 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000). This framework applies equally to situations where the complaint leaves the amount in controversy unclear or ambiguous. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992); Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 403-04 (9th Cir. 1996).

A removing defendant “may not meet [its] burden by simply reciting some ‘magical incantation’ to the effect that ‘the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of [$75,000],’ but instead, must set forth in the removal petition the underlying facts supporting its assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds [$75,000].” Richmond v. Allstate Ins. Co., 897 F. Supp. 447, 450 (S.D. Cal. 1995) (quoting Gaus, 980 F.2d at 567). If the plaintiff has not clearly or unambiguously alleged $75,000 in its complaint or has affirmatively alleged an amount less than $75,000 in its complaint, the burden lies with the defendant to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:24-cv-00960-DOC-ADS Date: May 22, 2024 Page 3

minimum is satisfied. Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 2010); Guglielmino, 506 F.3d at 699.

While the defendant must “set forth the underlying facts supporting its assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory minimum,” the standard is not so taxing so as to require the defendant to “research, state, and prove the plaintiff’s claims for damages.” Coleman v. Estes Express Lines, Inc., 730 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 1148 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (emphases added). In short, the defendant must show that it is “more likely than not” that the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory minimum. Id. Summary judgment-type evidence may be used to substantiate this showing. Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090–91 (9th Cir. 2003); Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997). For example, defendants may make mathematical calculations using reasonable averages of hourly, monthly, and annual incomes of comparable employees when assessing the amount in controversy in a wrongful termination suit. Coleman, 730 F. Supp. 2d. at 1148–49.

If the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, any action it takes is ultra vires and void. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 534 (2005); Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94, 101–02 (1998). The lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by either the parties or the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). If subject matter jurisdiction is found to be lacking, the court must dismiss the action, id., or remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). A court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte. See Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002).

III. Discussion

Defendant has not met its burden to show that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied. The Court considers lost wages in the period from termination until removal. Here, Plaintiff was terminated on November 7, 2023, and the case was removed on May 3, 2024. See Not. ¶ 13. A weekly rate of $563.97 over these 26 weeks results in $14,663.22 in lost wages. Id. To reach the jurisdictional threshold, Defendant asks the Court to include attorneys’ fees, emotional distress damages, punitive damages, and lost wages and other employment benefits from the date of Plaintiff’s termination until a hypothetical future trial date. Id. ¶¶ 10-17.

This Court, however, does not include these types of speculative damages when calculating the amount in controversy. See Traxler v. Multnomah Cnty., 596 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir. 2010) (recognizing that front pay is speculative); Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1156 (9th Cir. 1998) (“We hold that where an underlying

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:24-cv-00960-DOC-ADS Date: May 22, 2024 Page 4

statute authorizes an award of attorneys’ fees, either with mandatory or discretionary language, such fees may be included in the amount in controversy.”). Nor will the Court include Plaintiff’s alleged emotional distress damages. Given the nature of Plaintiff’s injury—being terminated from her job—$500,000 worth of emotional distress damages is difficult to credit. See Compl. ¶ 4; see also Simmons v. PCR Tech., 209 F.Supp.2d 1029, 1034 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (emotional distress damages “may be considered in the amount in controversy”) (emphasis added).

Because Defendant has not satisfied their burden to show that more than $75,000 is at issue in this case, the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction.

IV. Disposition

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby REMANDS this case to the Superior Court of Orange County, California.

The Clerk shall serve this minute order on the parties.

MINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk: djl

CIVIL-GEN