Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01135/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01135-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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 

Martha Vasquez, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Target Corporation, a Minnesota 

corporation; Target Stores, Inc. (FN), a 

Minnesota corporation; John Does and Jane 

Does 1-10; ABC Corporations 1-10; XYZ 

Partnerships 1-10, 

Defendants. 

No. CV-16-01135-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

Defendants Target Corporation and Target Stores, Inc., removed Plaintiff’s state 

court action to this Court, alleging diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1 at 1–2.) Although 

Plaintiff’s complaint did not specify the amount of damages claimed, Plaintiff’s demand 

letter to Defendants proposed a $95,000 settlement. (Id. at 2; Doc. 13-1 at 7.) 

Plaintiff moves to remand, arguing Defendants have not demonstrated the amount 

in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Doc. 10.) On Plaintiff’s view, “[i]n order for federal 

court jurisdiction to exist in this case, the Court must determine, as a matter of law, that 

Plaintiffs [sic] will recover damages in an amount sufficient to reach the jurisdictional 

requirement of this Court.” (Id. at 5.) 

Plaintiff is half-right: Defendants must demonstrate that the amount in controversy 

exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 839 (9th 

Case 2:16-cv-01135-NVW Document 14 Filed 05/25/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

Cir. 2002). But the Court need not find that Plaintiff will actually recover that much. 

The relevant inquiry “is not whether the damages are greater than the requisite amount, 

but whether a fact finder might legally conclude that they are.” Kopp v. Kopp, 280 F.3d 

883, 885 (8th Cir. 2002). The jurisdictional threshold is satisfied if the jury reasonably 

could award more than $75,000, even if they ultimately award less. Id.

Plaintiff’s demand of $95,000 is relevant evidence of the amount in controversy 

because it appears to reflect a reasonable estimate of her claim. Cohn, 281 F.3d at 840. 

Plaintiff has made no attempt to disavow her letter or offer contrary evidence. Thus, the 

demand letter is sufficient to establish the amount in controversy. Id.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 10) is 

denied. 

Dated this 25th day of May, 2016. 

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge

Case 2:16-cv-01135-NVW Document 14 Filed 05/25/16 Page 2 of 2