Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01517/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01517-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

11cv1517

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEANNA MOREY,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOUIS VUITTON NORTH AMERICA,

INC.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 11cv1517-L(BLM)

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO

STATE COURT

On July 8, 2011 Defendant filed a notice of removal, removing this putative class action

under California Civil Code Section 1747.08 pertaining to a merchant’s request from customers

for personal identification information. The notice of removal is based on diversity jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332 and 1441.

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power

authorized by Constitution or a statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree. It is to be

presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction and the burden of establishing the

contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); see also Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684

(9th Cir. 2006). 

Consistent with the limited jurisdiction of federal courts, the removal statute is strictly

construed against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992);

Case 3:11-cv-01517-WQH-BLM Document 3 Filed 07/11/11 Page 1 of 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

2 11cv1517

see also Sygenta Crop Prot. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002); O’Halloran v. University of

Wash., 856 F.2d 1375, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). “The strong presumption against removal

jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is

proper.” Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566; see also Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assoc., 903 F.2d

709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990); O’Halloran, 856 F.2d at 1380. “The traditional rule of burden

allocation in determining removal jurisdiction was meant to comport with what the Supreme

Court has termed ‘[t]he dominant note in the successive enactments of Congress relating to

diversity jurisdiction,’ that is, ‘jealous restriction, of avoiding offense to state sensitiveness, and

of relieving the federal courts of the overwhelming burden of business that intrinsically belongs

to the state courts in order to keep them free for their distinctive federal business.’” Abrego

Abrego, 443 F.3d at 685, quoting Indianapolis v. Chase Nat’l Bank, 314 U.S. 63, 76 (1941). 

This putative class action was removed based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

Section 1332(d). “Section 1332(d), added by [Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, “CAFA”],

vests the district court with ‘original jurisdiction of any civil action in which the matter in

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is a

class action in which’ the parties satisfy, among other requirements, minimal diversity.” Id. at

680 (footnote omitted). 

The burden of establishing removal jurisdiction, including the amount in controversy

requirement under CAFA, is on the defendant. Abrego Abrego, 443 F.3d at 682-85. To

determine whether the amount in controversy has been met on removal, “[t]he district court may

consider whether it is ‘facially apparent’ from the complaint that the jurisdictional amount is in

controversy.” Singer v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Plaintiff’s complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought. (Notice of

Removal Exh. 1.) “Where the complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought, the

removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in

controversy requirement has been met.” Abrego Abrego, 443 F.3d at 683. “Under this burden,

the defendant must provide evidence that it is ‘more likely than not’ that the amount in

controversy” satisfies the federal diversity jurisdictional amount requirement. Sanchez v.

Case 3:11-cv-01517-WQH-BLM Document 3 Filed 07/11/11 Page 2 of 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

3 11cv1517

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

The class includes “all persons in California from whom Defendant requested and

recorded personal identification information in conjunction with a credit card transaction.”

(Compl. at 5.) Plaintiff seeks recovery for the class under California Civil Code Section

1747.08(e), which provides for “a civil penalty not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250)

for the first violation and one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each subsequent violation.” 

Defendant contends that the $5 million amount in controversy is met in this case because in the

one-year period prior to the filing of this action Defendant “processed substantially in excess of

5,000 credit card transactions at retail locations in California.” (Decl. of Kathryn Kolanda at 2;

see also Notice of Removal at 3.) This argument appears to be based on the assumption that

each putative class member will recover $1,000. This assumption is unsupported because

neither the allegations in the complaint nor notice of removal nor Defendant’s evidence indicate

that any class member was subject to more than one violation. 

Accordingly, the facts presented in the notice of removal do not meet the burden of

establishing removal jurisdiction. “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the

district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

This action is REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of

San Diego.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 11, 2011

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. BARBARA L. MAJOR

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:11-cv-01517-WQH-BLM Document 3 Filed 07/11/11 Page 3 of 3