Lopez v. FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff's motion to remand, Defendant's request for judicial notice, Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees, and Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. The court granted the motion to remand, denied the request for judicial notice as moot, denied the request for attorneys' fees, and denied the motion to compel arbitration as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's motion to remand is granted.“First, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to remand [Dkt. 6] because Defendant FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc.’s (“Defendant FedEx”) has not met its burden to establish that the amount in controversy, when considering attorneys’ fees, more likely than not exceeds $75,000 as required to establish diversity jurisdiction.” | agree with court The court correctly applies the standard that the removing party bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). The order recites that the defendant failed to meet this burden regarding the amount in controversy. While the specific factual findings are not detailed in the order, the legal standard and the conclusion that the burden was not met are consistent with federal law. |
Defendant's request for judicial notice is denied as moot.“Second, the Court DENIES as MOOT Defendant FedEx’s request for judicial notice [Dkt. 15-4] on the grounds that the Court did not rely on these documents in reaching its decision.” | agree with court Denying a request for judicial notice as moot because the court did not rely on the documents is a standard procedural disposition. The reasoning is internally consistent with the grant of the remand motion. |
Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees is denied.“Third, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs request for attorneys’ fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) because Plaintiff has not shown that “the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.”” | agree with court The court correctly cites the standard from Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp. for awarding fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The order states that the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of showing the removal lacked an objectively reasonable basis. This is a correct application of the law, assuming the factual finding that the basis was objectively reasonable is supported by the record (which is not fully detailed here but is the stated basis for the ruling). |
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration is denied as moot.“Finally, because the Court remands this case to state court, the Court also DENIES MOOT Defendant FedEx’s motion to compel arbitration [Dkt. 8].” | agree with court Once the case is remanded to state court, the federal court loses jurisdiction over the merits and pending motions related to the merits, such as a motion to compel arbitration. Denying it as moot is the correct procedural step. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but correctly identifies the legal standards for remand (burden of proof on amount in controversy) and fees (objective reasonableness of removal). It correctly disposes of the other motions as moot or denied based on the primary ruling. The reasoning is sufficient for the procedural posture.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NORMA LOPEZ, individually and on Case No.: 23-cv-02155-JO-SBC behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTION TO REMAND, DENYING 14 DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT 15 JUDICIAL NOTICE, DENYING SERVICES, INC. and DOES 1 through PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 16 50, inclusive, ATTORNEYS’ FEES, AND 17 Defendants. DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL 18 22 For the reasons stated on the record, the Court issues the following rulings. First, 23 the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to remand [Dkt. 6] because Defendant FedEx Office 24 and Print Services, Inc.’s (“Defendant FedEx”) has not met its burden to establish that the 25 amount in controversy, when considering attorneys’ fees, more likely than not exceeds 26 $75,000 as required to establish diversity jurisdiction. See Sanchez v. Monumental Life 27 Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). 28 1 Second, the Court DENIES as MOOT Defendant FedEx’s request for judicial 2 ||notice [Dkt. 15-4] on the grounds that the Court did not rely on these documents in 3 || reaching its decision. 4 Third, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs request for attorneys’ fees pursuant to 28 5 ||U.S.C. § 1447(c) because Plaintiff has not shown that “the removing party lacked an 6 || objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Martin v. Franklin Cap. Corp., 546 7 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). 8 Finally, because the Court remands this case to state court, the Court also DENIES 9 MOOT Defendant FedEx’s motion to compel arbitration [Dkt. 8]. 10 The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close the case. 11 |} IS SO ORDERED. 12 Qe B Dated: January 31, 2024 14 Honorable Jinsook Ohta 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28