CUENNTITREADL S DTIASTTERSIC DTI SOTFR CICATL ICFOOURRNTIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. 2:20-cv-10421-RGK-JEM Date December 17, 2020 Title DANIEL ANDRE PEREZ v. RENTGROW, INC.

Present: The R. GARY KLAUSNER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Honorable Joseph Remigio (not present) Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order Remanding Action to State Court On October 15, 2020, Daniel Andre Perez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Rentgrow, Inc. (“Defendant”) alleging one claim for Violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1786.20(b). On November 13, 2020, Defendant removed the action to this Court alleging jurisdiction on the grounds of diversity of citizenship. Upon review of Defendant’s Notice of Removal, the Court hereby remands the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, district courts shall have original jurisdiction over any civil action in which the parties are citizens of different states and the action involved an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000. After a plaintiff files a case in state court, the defendant attempting to remove the case to federal court bears the burden of proving the amount in controversy requirement has been met. Lowdermilk v. United States Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998 (9th Cir. 2007). If the complaint does not allege that the amount in controversy has been met, the removing defendant must plausibly allege in its notice of removal that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 553-54 (2014). Whether or not the plaintiff challenges these allegations, a court may still insist that the jurisdictional requirement has been established by a preponderance of the evidence. Guas v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566–67 (9th Cir. 1992). In support of its removal, Defendant summarily states that because of the types of damages Plaintiff seeks, and based on the allegations of the complaint, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The Court finds this conclusory statement, with no facts or argument to support Defendant’s position, fails to plausibly allege that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional requirement. ///

CUENNTITREADL S DTIASTTERSIC DTI SOTFR CICATL ICFOOURRNTIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. 2:20-cv-10421-RGK-JEM Date December 17, 2020 Title DANIEL ANDRE PEREZ v. RENTGROW, INC. In light of the foregoing, the action is hereby remanded to state court for all further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

cc: LASC, Case No. 20STCV39679

: Initials of Preparer