Rayburn v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Marilyn L. Huff (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to remand a diversity case to state court, stipulating that the amount in controversy was capped below the $75,000 statutory threshold. The court granted the motion and remanded the action to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint motion to remand action back to state court granted“For good cause shown, the Court grants the joint motion, and the Court remands the action back to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the statutory requirement for diversity jurisdiction, which mandates an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. Because the parties stipulated to a damages cap of $74,999.99, the statutory jurisdictional requirement was not met, necessitating remand. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the jurisdictional defect based on the parties' stipulation regarding the amount in controversy and cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority supporting the $75,000 threshold and the limited nature of federal jurisdiction.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 37-02024-00011285-CU-PO-CTL 11 TERI RAYBURN, Case No.: 24-cv-02051-H-BJC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION TO REMAND ACTION BACK TO STATE COURT 14 SEAWORLD PARKS & ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; and DOES 1 15 [Doc. No. 5.] TO 25, inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 18 On October 1, 2024, Plaintiff Teri Rayburn filed a complaint in the Superior Court 19 of California, County of San Diego against Defendant SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, 20 Inc, alleging claims for general negligence and premises liability. (Doc. No. 1, Compl.) 21 On October 31, 2024, Defendant removed the action to the United States District Court for 22 the Southern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446 on the basis of 23 diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Doc. No. 1, Notice of Removal.) 24 On December 13, 2024, the parties filed a joint motion to remand the action back to 25 state court. (Doc. No. 5.) In the joint motion, the parties stipulate that plaintiff’s damages 26 are limited and capped at $74,999.99, and, therefore, the Court now lacks subject matter 27 jurisdiction over the action, and the case should be remanded to state court. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 9- 28 19.) For good cause shown, the Court grants the joint motion, and the Court remands the 1 || action back to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. See Canela v. Costco 2 || Wholesale Corp., 971 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Traditional diversity jurisdiction 3 ||requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy greater than 4 $75,000.” (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a))); Hansen v. Grp. Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1056 5 Cir. 2018) (“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and, as such, cannot 6 || exercise jurisdiction without constitutional and statutory authorization.”). The Clerk of 7 || Court 1s directed to close the case. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || DATED: December 16, 2024 | l | | | 10 MARILYN W. HUFF, Distri ge 1] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28