Amaya v. Liberty Residential Services, INC.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff moved to remand a class action alleging California labor law violations, arguing the defendants failed to prove the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million. The court granted the motion and remanded the case to San Diego Superior Court.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Remand Granted“The Court therefore GRANTS the motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the preponderance of the evidence standard required for removal based on diversity jurisdiction in class actions. Since the defendants submitted a notice of non-opposition and admitted they could not meet the amount in controversy requirement, the plaintiff's burden was satisfied, and the court was required to remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on the appropriate Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the burden of proof for removal. The reasoning is concise but sufficient given the defendants' concession.
Opinion
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11 NATALI AMAYA, ) Case No.: 22-cv-859-L-JML ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ON MOTION TO REMAND ) 13 vs. ) (ECF NO. 9) ) 14 LIBERTY RESIDENTIAL ) SERVICES, INC., et al., ) 15 ) ) 16 Defendants. ) ) 17 ) ) 18 19 Pending before the Court in this punitive class action is Plaintiff Natali 20 Amaya’s motion to remand. (ECF No. 9). The Court decides the matter on the 21 papers submitted and without oral argument. Civ. L. R. 7.1.
22 Plaintiff filed this action on April 21, 2022, in San Diego Superior Court.
23 Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated several California labor and employment 24 laws. On June 10, 2022, Defendants removed the action to this Court. (ECF No. 1).
25 Plaintiff argues Defendants failed to prove by a preponderance of the 26 evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. (ECF No. 9 at 4); 28 27 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Defendants submitted a notice of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s 28 motion to remand, asserting they concluded the amount in controversy requirement 1 cannot be met. (ECF No. 10). Based on the record, Defendants failed to meet their burden. The Court therefore GRANTS the motion. Dart Cherokee Basin 3 Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2014); Fritsch v. Swift Transp. Co. of 4 Ariz., LLC, 899 F.3d 785, 794 (9th Cir. 2018); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 5 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (“federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as 6 to the right of removal in the first instance.’’); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (‘if at any time 7 before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter g jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”) The Court REMANDS this action to 9 San Diego Superior Court. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 || Dated: July 20, 2022 1 ar flap H . James Lorenz, 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28