Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00281/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00281-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 11cv281 BTM(POR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL GAMINO,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 11cv281 BTM(POR)

ORDER REMANDING CASE

v.

HIRERIGHT SOLUTIONS, INC. et al.,

Defendants.

In an order filed on February 17, 2011, the Court ordered Defendant Old Dominion

Freight Line, Inc., to show cause why this case should not be remanded for lack of removal

jurisdiction. For the reasons discussed below, this case is REMANDED to state court.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 10, 2010, Plaintiff commenced this action in the Superior Court of the

State of California, County of San Diego.

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was formerly employed by defendant Old

Dominion Freight Line, Inc. (“Old Dominion”) as a truck driver. In or about December, 2009,

Plaintiff applied for employment with FedEx. (Compl. ¶ 5.) During the interview process with

FedEx, Plaintiff learned that Old Dominion had provided false information to defendant

HireRight, Inc. (“HireRight”), who then passed on the information to FedEx. (Compl. ¶¶ 9-

10.) This false information was contained in a report, which indicated that Plaintiff had been

Case 3:11-cv-00281-BTM-POR Document 14 Filed 03/28/11 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The Complaint actually states that Plaintiff resigned in February 2009. However,

given that Plaintiff interviewed with FedEx in December 2009, it is apparent that Plaintiff

made a typographical error.

2 11cv281 BTM(POR)

in an accident involving injuries, death, or property damage. (Ex. A to Compl. (not attached

to the Complaint filed with the Notice of Removal).) 

When Plaintiff explained to FedEx that the information was erroneous, FedEx hired

Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff worked at FedEx until February 2010,1 when he resigned

because the only available shift was the night shift, which Plaintiff could not work. (Comp.

¶ 11.) Plaintiff subsequently applied for a driver position with Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc.

(“Saia”). In a letter dated October 29, 2010, Saia informed Plaintiff that they could not hire

him because they had hired HireRight to conduct a background check and had received a

copy of the aforementioned report. (Compl. ¶ 13.)

Plaintiff alleges that Old Dominion has admitted that the information regarding Plaintiff

being involved in an accident is false. (Compl. ¶ 15.) Plaintiff also alleges that HireRight has

refused to correct the false information despite Plaintiff’s requests that it do so. (Compl. ¶

14.) 

Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) defamation; (2) intentional interference with

prospective economic advantage; (3) and negligent interference with prospective economic

advantage. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorney’s

fees, and costs.

On February 10, 2011, Old Dominion removed this action to federal court. Old

Dominion contends that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over the action under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332(a). 

II. DISCUSSION

The Court has ordered Old Dominion to show cause why this case should not be

remanded for lack of removal jurisdiction. Upon review of the responses to the Court’s OSC,

the Court concludes that Old Dominion has failed to establish by a preponderance of the

evidence that the amount in controversy at the time of removal exceeded $75,000.

Case 3:11-cv-00281-BTM-POR Document 14 Filed 03/28/11 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 11cv281 BTM(POR)

Plaintiff does not request a specific amount of damages in his Complaint. When it is

unclear what amount of damages is sought by the plaintiff, the defendant bears the burden

of proving the facts to support jurisdiction, including the jurisdictional amount. Gaus v. Miles,

Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The defendant must prove the existence of the

amount in controversy by a preponderance of evidence. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins.

Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Old Dominion argues that based on the salary Plaintiff made at Old Dominion

($100,000 from April 2006 through November 2008), by the time of trial, his lost wages alone

would be over $50,000, not including the value of lost benefits. However, Plaintiff points out

that the Complaint’s prayer does not seek front pay and that Plaintiff’s past lost wages, when

off-set by Plaintiff’s income earned and unemployment benefits, do not amount to or exceed

$75,000. At the time of removal, it appears that the lost wages in question were the wages

Plaintiff would have earned at Saia from late October 2010 until the date of removal

(February 10, 2011). This amount would certainly be significantly less than $75,000.

Moreover, even if Plaintiff were seeking front pay, Old Dominion’s calculations regarding the

amount of front pay that would be at issue at the time of trial is entirely speculative, especially

given that Plaintiff has already obtained one job in spite of the report. See Snead v. AAR

Mfg., 2009 WL 3242013 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 6, 2009) (declining to consider front pay calculations

in determining amount in controversy because they were based on pure speculation); Lamke

v. Sunstate Equipment Co., LLC, 319 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (explaining that

inquiry into mitigation of damages with respect to front pay was appropriate in determining

the amount in controversy in a removal case). 

Old Dominion argues that the amount in controversy would nonetheless exceed

$75,000 when including emotional distress damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees.

Although Plaintiff generally alleges that he was subject to “disgrace and humiliation,” there

is no evidence that Plaintiff suffered emotional distress to a degree that would make likely

an award of tens of thousands of dollars. The emotional distress award in the case of Baker

v. Privatair, Inc. (Def.’s Ex. 3) does not bolster Old Dominion’s position. In Baker, not only

Case 3:11-cv-00281-BTM-POR Document 14 Filed 03/28/11 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4 11cv281 BTM(POR)

did the defendants make false allegations of safety violations by the plaintiff, Chief Pilot to

Bruce Willis and Demi Moore, but also made ageist comments about the pilot and made “wild

allegations about alcohol and mental problems,” which were published to Willis and Moore.

Here, the allegedly false information provided by Old Dominion to HireRight was not

of a scandalous nature. In fact, in its pending motion to strike, Old Dominion points out that

the report (attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint but not included with the Notice of

Removal) indicates:

Equipment was involved in an occurrence or act that produces

unintended injury, death, property damage of any type, or resulted in the

equipment requiring tow (other than mechanical breakdown) while assigned to

the driver regardless of fault. Adverse information is reported for 7 years.

Number of DOT Recordable accidents less than 7 years old. 0

Number of Non DOT Recordable Accidents/Incident less than 7 years old. 0

No additional accident/incident information available.

The language in dispute appears to be the first paragraph quoted above. This language

does not actually state that Plaintiff was at fault or actually involved in an accident involving

injuries, death, or property damage, as alleged by Plaintiff. This language would also apply

if Plaintiff’s equipment was involved in some sort of occurrence that resulted in the equipment

requiring tow even though Plaintiff was not at fault. Accordingly, the information conveyed

by Old Dominion, even if not accurate, does not necessarily convey that Plaintiff was an

incompetent truck driver.

For the same reasons, Baker does not support Old Dominion’s contention that Plaintiff

could be awarded millions of dollars in punitive damages. Given the ambiguous nature of

the information at issue, the Court cannot conclude that an award of punitive damages would

be likely. Indeed, Old Dominion has moved to strike the request for punitive damages

because Plaintiff’s claims are contradicted by the Search Report. 

Finally, as pointed out by Old Dominion in its motion to strike, Plaintiff has not asserted

a statutory or contractual basis for the recovery of attorney’s fees. Therefore, the Court

cannot consider attorney’s fees in determining the amount in controversy.

Case 3:11-cv-00281-BTM-POR Document 14 Filed 03/28/11 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5 11cv281 BTM(POR)

The Court concludes that Old Dominion has failed to meet its burden of establishing

that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Accordingly, the Court remands the case

to state court.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed below, the Court REMANDS this case to the Superior

Court of the State of California, County of San Diego. Accordingly, the Court does not rule

on the pending motions to dismiss and strike.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 28, 2011

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00281-BTM-POR Document 14 Filed 03/28/11 Page 5 of 5