Colleen Marie v. Walmart, Inc. et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- John A. Houston (author)
Analysis
The court considered a defendant's response to an order to show cause regarding whether the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 threshold for federal diversity jurisdiction. The court vacated the order to show cause, finding that the defendant met its burden of proof because the plaintiff did not contest the defendant's assertions that the alleged damages exceeded the jurisdictional minimum.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Vacated the Order to Show Cause (OSC) regarding the amount in controversy.“Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the OSC is VACATED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, which holds that a defendant's amount-in-controversy allegation is accepted when not contested by the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff failed to file a reply or otherwise contest the defendant's arguments, the defendant satisfied its burden of showing the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 by a preponderance of the evidence. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally and substantively sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for determining the amount in controversy in the context of a removal dispute. The court properly noted that the plaintiff's failure to contest the defendant's specific arguments regarding the nature and magnitude of the damages (medical, wage loss, general damages) allowed the court to accept the defendant's representations. The reliance on Dart Cherokee and Ibarra is appropriate for the Ninth Circuit context.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 COLLEEN MARIE, Case No.: 3:25-cv-03101-JAH-GC 11 ORDER VACATING ORDER TO Plaintiff, 12 SHOW CAUSE v. 13 [ECF No. 5] WALMART, INC. et al., 14 15 Defendants. 16 17 On January 6, 2026, the Court ordered Defendant Walmart, Inc. to show cause as to 18 why this action should not be remanded back to state court for lack of subject matter 19 jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, for failure to plausibly allege damages 20 exceeding the statutorily required amount of $75,000. ECF No. 5 (“OSC”). On January 21 13, 2026, Defendant timely filed its response to the OSC. ECF No. 6 (“Response”). 22 Plaintiff did not file a Reply. 23 Where a complaint does not specify a precise amount of damages, a removing 24 defendant must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy 25 exceeds $75,000. See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 26 88 (2014). A removing defendant is not required to prove the amount in controversy to a 27 legal certainty and courts may rely on reasonable assumptions drawn from the allegations 28 in a complaint to determine the amount in controversy. See Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 1 F.3d 1193, 1199 (9th Cir. 2015). 2 Defendant contends that although Plaintiff does not plead a specific dollar amount 3 || of damages in the Complaint, the four categories of damages alleged together—wage loss; 4 hospital and medical expenses; general damages; and loss of earning capacity—lead to a 5 ||reasonable inference that the amount in controversy places well in excess of $75,000. 6 ||Resp. at 2. Specifically, as to Plaintiff's claims for hospital and medical expenses, 7 ||Defendant argues that courts routinely recognize that “substantial past and/or future 8 || medical costs” can “reasonably exceed tens of thousands of dollars.” Jd. at 2. As to wage 9 || loss and loss of earning capacity, Defendant argues that such losses “are not limited to past 10 || lost wages and often represent[ | a significant component of damages that may extend for 11 || years or decades into the future.” /d. at 2. Finally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s request 12 || for general damages “typically include[s] pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss 13 enjoyment of life,” which are “inherently substantial” often “equal or exceed claimed 14 ||economic damages.” /d. at 3. 15 Based on the parties’ representations, and considering that there is no objection by 16 || Plaintiff contesting Defendant’s amount-in-controversy assertions, the Court finds that 17 || Defendant has satisfied its burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 18 amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. See Dart Cherokee, 574 U.S. 19 || at 87 (explaining that ‘‘a defendant’s amount-in-controversy allegation should be accepted 20 || when not contested by the plaintiff’). Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the 21 ||OSC is VACATED. 22 The case shall proceed according to a Scheduling Order to be issued by the 23 || Honorable Magistrate Judge Guillermo Cabrera. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || DATED: July 31, 2026 | ) | | | 26 17 JOHN A. HOUSTON JNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28