Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00597/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00597-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dario Raygoza, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Etelecare Global Solutions/Stream, 

Defendant.

No. CV-11-597-PHX DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against Defendant in state court. Doc. 1-3. 

Defendant removed the case to this Court. Doc. 1. For reasons that follow, the case will 

be remanded. 

 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, “possess[ing] only that power 

authorized by Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 

511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, a defendant “may remove an 

action to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.” 

Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009); see 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1331, 1332. Defendant’s notice of removal asserts both federal question and diversity 

jurisdiction. Doc. 1 at 2. 

 “It is to be presumed that a cause of action lies outside the limited jurisdiction of 

the federal courts and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party 

asserting jurisdiction.” Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1042 (citations omitted). As explained more 

Case 2:11-cv-00597-DGC Document 8 Filed 05/27/11 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

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 

fully below, Defendant has not met its burden. 

I. Federal Question Jurisdiction.

 The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over cases “arising under” federal law. 

28 U.S.C. § 1331. Defendant notes that complaint alleges sexual harassment and 

retaliation (Doc. 1-3 at 2), and that Plaintiff has filed a charge of discrimination with the 

EEOC. Doc. 1 at 2. But nowhere does the complaint assert a claim under Title VII or 

any other federal law. 

 It is well established that federal question jurisdiction exists only where the 

“complaint establishes that the case ‘arises under’ federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. of 

State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983) (emphasis added). 

Stated differently, “[t]he federal question ‘must be disclosed upon the face of the 

complaint unaided by the answer or petition for removal.’” Takeda v. Nw. Nat’l Life Ins. 

Co., 765 F.2d 815, 821 (9th Cir. 1985) (quoting Gully v. First Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 

113 (1936)). Because Plaintiff’s claims for sexual harassment and retaliation, as pled, do 

not depend on resolution of any issue of federal law, the Court does not have subject 

matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

II. Diversity Jurisdiction. 

 Federal courts possess diversity jurisdiction “where the matter in controversy 

exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . 

citizens of different States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). The complaint does not demand a 

dollar amount. See Doc. 1-3 at 2. When a plaintiff institutes a case in state court, “there 

is a strong presumption that the plaintiff has not claimed a large amount in order to confer 

jurisdiction on a federal court.” Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 

375 (9th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). Thus, “the removing defendant bears the burden 

of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds 

[$75,000].” Id. at 376; see Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 

1090 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Case 2:11-cv-00597-DGC Document 8 Filed 05/27/11 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

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 

 Because Plaintiff’s annual salary at the time of his termination was approximately 

$25,000, Defendant asserts, “Plaintiff’s recovery (including lost wages and emotional 

distress damages) could exceed $75,000.” Doc. 1 at 2 (emphasis added). To meet its 

burden, however, Defendant “must provide evidence establishing that it is ‘more likely 

than not’ that the amount in controversy exceeds [$75,000].” Sanchez v. Monumental 

Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). That is, where “it is unclear what 

amount of damages the plaintiff has sought, . . . then the defendant bears the burden of 

actually proving the facts to support jurisdiction, including the jurisdictional amount.” 

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566-67 (9th Cir. 1992) (emphasis in original). The 

defendant bears the burden of proving such facts “in the removal petition itself.” Id. 

at 567. Defendant’s assertion that the amount in controversy “could” exceed $75,000, 

without identifying “any specific factual allegations or provisions in the complaint which 

might support that proposition, should provoke sua sponte remand[.]” Id. (citation 

omitted). 

III. Remand Summary.

 Courts strictly construe the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, against removal 

jurisdiction. Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. This strong presumption against removal means that 

the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper, and federal 

jurisdiction “must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first 

instance.” Id. Defendant has failed to meet its high burden. The Court therefore will 

remand the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) 

(the case shall be remanded if “at any time before final judgment it appears that the 

district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction”); see also Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090 

(courts “have an ongoing obligation to be sure that jurisdiction exists”); Fiedler v. Clark, 

714 F.2d 77, 78 (9th Cir. 1983) (courts “may dismiss sua sponte if jurisdiction is 

lacking”). 

 

Case 2:11-cv-00597-DGC Document 8 Filed 05/27/11 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to remand this case to state court. 

 Dated this 26th day of May, 2011. 

Case 2:11-cv-00597-DGC Document 8 Filed 05/27/11 Page 4 of 4