Case ID: f-appx_358/html/0782-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MEMORANDUM \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Roberto MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CRAB ADDISON, INC., Erroneously Sued As Joe’s Crab Shack, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, and Does 1 Through 50, Inclusive, Defendant.
    No. 09-56573.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Nov. 4, 2009.
    Filed Nov. 17, 2009.
    John Glugoski, Esquire, Matthew Righetti, Righetti Law Firm, P.C., San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Michael S. Run, Esquire, Kathryn T. McGuigan, Esquire, Epstein Becker & Green, PC, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER, BERZON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

The district court’s determination that Crab Addison failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), was not clearly erroneous. See Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 683 (9th Cir.2006). Specifically, the district court did not clearly err in determining that the declaration of Kevin Cottingim failed to disclose critical information and assumptions, including the number of weeks or pay-periods that were used in its calculations, and that this failure made the declaration insufficient to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. The district court also violated no constitutional rights in considering Martinez’s notice of supplemental authority; courts have long recognized the propriety of considering such notices of relevant case law. See, e.g., Fed. R.App. P. 28(3).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.