No. C 02-05635 WHAUnited States District Court, N.D. California.
March 12, 2003
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND
WILLIAM HASKELL ALSUP, District Judge
INTRODUCTION
This order GRANTS plaintiffs motion to remand this products-liability and personal-injury action to the Superior Court for the County of Sonoma.
STATEMENT
Plaintiff filed this action in Superior Court for the County of Sonoma. Defendant Black Decker (U.S.), Inc., erroneously sued as DeWalt Industrial Tool Company, removed to this Court. The Home Depot joined in the removal. According to the notice of removal, this Court has original jurisdiction over the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because it is a civil action between citizens of different states and the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs.
Page 2
The complaint alleges that defendants negligently manufactured, delivered, and sold to plaintiff a jig saw without appropriate safety features and without warning of the risk of “serious pinching/compressing injury.” The complaint further alleges that the product in question caused plaintiff injury. By marking boxes on the form complaint, plaintiff indicated that he was asserting negligence and products-liability causes of action, and that he incurred general damages, hospital and medical expenses, and loss of earning capacity. The complaint stated that plaintiff sought “judgment for costs of suit; for such relief as is fair, just, and equitable;” and for compensatory damages unlimited according to proof. Nowhere did the complaint specify a dollar amount of damages sought.
Plaintiff now moves to remand on the ground that the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction is not satisfied.
ANALYSIS
A federal district court must have original jurisdiction over an action in order for that action to be removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a). Black Decker asserted in the notice of removal that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. For there to be diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). When, as here, the complaint does not specify the amount in controversy, the removing party must actually prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy is sufficient to confer federal jurisdiction. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 403-04 (9th Cir. 1996).
The notice of removal states that Black Decker is “informed and believes that the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs, as the dispute concerns an allegedly negligently manufactured and designed jig saw that caused serious injury to Plaintiff” (Notice of Removal ¶ 5). Black Decker explains that based on its review of the pleadings, it concluded that it was more likely than not that the amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied. Black Decker points out that plaintiff alleged “serious pinching/compressing injury” from use of the jig saw. Furthermore, the form
Page 3
complaint indicates that plaintiff suffered hospital and medical expenses, general damages, and loss of earning capacity and that plaintiff sought damages unlimited according to proof.
This order finds that Black Decker has failed to satisfy its burden of proving that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Nowhere has Black Decker provided any information as to the actual amount of damages suffered, including the nature and severity of plaintiffs alleged injury, the amount of hospital or medical expenses incurred, or the amount of earning capacity lost. Black Decker’s conclusion regarding the amount in controversy is based on nothing more than speculation.
In so holding, this order disagrees with Black Decker’s assertion that it is facially apparent from the complaint that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Plaintiffs sworn declaration indicates that his left index finger was lacerated when he used the jig saw (Pomponio Decl. ¶¶ 5-6). He states that upon sustaining the injury, he immediately went to the hospital for treatment but has not received further medical treatment for the injury (id. ¶¶ 6-7). At the hospital, plaintiffs finger was bandaged and he received no stitches (Supplemental Pomponio Decl. ¶ 7). It wholly plausible that, consistent with the allegations in the complaint, plaintiff suffered damages in an amount less than $75,000. Black Decker cannot rely on the complaint alone to carry its burden of showing that the amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied.
Finally, this order notes that plaintiff has “stipulate[d] and acknowledge[d]” in a sworn declaration that his “damages present and future are less than $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs” (Supplemental Pomponio Decl. ¶ 10). This Court considers plaintiff judicially estopped from later seeking a greater sum of damages as this case proceeds.
Plaintiffs request for attorney’s fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) is denied. Although this order finds that Black Decker failed to carry its burden of establishing diversity jurisdiction, it appears that the removal was in good faith.
Page 4
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs motion to remand is GRANTED. This action is REMANDED to the Superior Court for the County of Sonoma. Plaintiffs request for attorney’s fees and costs is DENIED. Plaintiffs request for judicial notice is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Page 1