Crowder v. Sprouts Farmers Market, LLC.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Marilyn L. Huff (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to remand the action to state court, stipulating that the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000. The court granted the motion and remanded the case to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant joint motion to remand action back to state court“As such, 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. Since the parties jointly stipulated that the amount in controversy was $74,999.00, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and was required to remand the case. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and legally sound. It accurately identifies the lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the parties' stipulation regarding the amount in controversy and cites the appropriate statutory and case law to support the remand.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 DONNEL CROWDER, Case No.: 23-cv-00140-H-JLB 13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 14 v. MOTION TO REMAND ACTION BACK TO STATE COURT 15 SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET, LLC;
and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive , 16 [Doc. No. 7.] Defendants. 17 18 On August 29, 2022, Plaintiff Donnel Crowder filed a complaint in the Superior 19 Court of California, County of San Diego against Defendant Sprouts Farmers Market, LLC. 20 (Doc. No. 1-2, Compl.) On January 25, 2023, Defendant SF Markets, LLC dba Sprouts 21 Farmers Market (erroneously sued as “Sprouts Farmers Market, LLC”) removed the action 22 to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California pursuant to 28 23 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446 on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 24 (Doc. No. 1, Notice of Removal.) 25 On February 24, 2023, the parties filed a joint motion to remand the action back to 26 state court. (Doc. No. 7.) In the joint motion, the parties state that they agree that the 27 amount in controversy for this action will be for no more than $74,999.00. (Id. at 2.) As 28 1 ||such, the Court grants the joint motion, and the Court remands the action back to the 2 Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Chavez v. 3 || JPMorgan Chase & Co., 888 F.3d 413, 415 (9th Cir. 2018) (“[D]iversity jurisdiction under 4 U.S.C. § 1332 ... requires complete diversity among the parties and an amount in 5 controversy in excess of $75,000.”). The Clerk is directed to close the case. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 || DATED: February 27, 2023 | | | jul | | | 8 MARILYN ®. HUFF, Distri ge 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28