Stephens

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKY STEPHENS, Case No. 23-cv-02726-AGT

Plaintiff,

ORDER ON MOTION TO REMAND

v. Re: Dkt. No.

TESLA INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant.

Stephens’s motion to remand is granted. Tesla has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B); Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 88 (2014). * * * To reach the $75,000 threshold, Tesla relies heavily on potential punitive damages. But Tesla’s punitive damages estimate ($61,000) isn’t adequate. Tesla has made no attempt to esti- mate the amount of compensatory damages in controversy. As a result, the Court cannot deter- mine, as it must, whether the “punitive/compensatory damages ratio is reasonably possible.” Greene v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 965 F.3d 767, 773 (9th Cir. 2020). Tesla also relies on an estimate of plaintiff's attorneys’ fees to meet $75,000. But Tesla’s estimate ($14,000) is based on attorney work (e.g., drafting the complaint, defending the named plaintiff’ s deposition) that would benefit the proposed class. The estimate must thus…