Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00332/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00332-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEX JIVAN,

NO. CIV. S-05-332 LKK/KJM

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE

COMPANY, a New Jersey corporation;

MAURA MALLIET, an individual; JEFF

MORRIS, an individual; JOHN JACOWICZ,

an individual; and ROBERT

O’SHAUGHNESSY, an individual,

Defendants.

 /

This matter is before the court on the petition of defendant

Hartford Casualty Insurance Company (“defendants”) for removal

predicated upon the court’s diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332. This court has an independent duty to ascertain its

jurisdiction and may remand sua sponte for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Having invoked the removal

statute, the defendants bear the burden of establishing this

Case 2:05-cv-00332-LKK -KJM Document 8 Filed 04/19/05 Page 1 of 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

2

court’s jurisdiction. See Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d

1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). As I explain below, defendant has

failed to meet this burden. 

Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of

citizenship among the parties, as well as a minimum amount in

controversy of over $75,000. See id. While it appears that

diversity of citizenship is satisfied, defendant has not met its

burden of demonstrating that the amount in controversy exceeds

$75,000. Plaintiff, Alex Jivan, filed a complaint on January 24,

2005 in Sacramento Superior Court alleging twelve causes of action

relating to his termination in August 2003. Nowhere in his

complaint does plaintiff assign a value to the relief he seeks.

"Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than

$75,000 is in controversy, the removing party must prove, by a

preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy meets

the jurisdictional threshold." Matheson v. Progressive Specialty

Insurance Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003); see Sanchez v.

Monumental Life Insurance Co. , 95 F.3d 856, 860 (9th Cir. 1996).

Defendant concedes that the complaint “does not allege a

specific amount in controversy,” but asserts that the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000 because plaintiff was earning an annual

salary of $126,040 as of the date of termination, and “had

plaintiff remained employed . . . plaintiff would have been paid

approximately $183,808.45 in total gross regular wages.” Defendant

also notes that plaintiff’s prayer for relief seeks damages for

emotional distress, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and

Case 2:05-cv-00332-LKK -KJM Document 8 Filed 04/19/05 Page 2 of 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

3

costs. Def.’s Not. of Removal at 4. Finally, defendant submits

a survey of California jury verdicts in employment cases and note

that “both the average jury award and median jury award for

employment cases have always exceeded $75,000.” Def.’s Exh. E.

Defendants have failed to prove, by a preponderance of the

evidence, that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional

threshold. 

First, defendant merely estimates the amount in controversy

based on plaintiff’s income and earnings, without specifically

discussing its potential liability as to plaintiff’s claims.

“[S]peculative argument regarding the potential value of the award

is insufficient" to establish the amount in controversy. Conrad

Associates v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 994 F.Supp. 1996,

1198 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (citing Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th

Cir. 1992)). Secondly, while it is true that plaintiff seeks

damages for punitive damages, emotional distress, attorney’s fees

and other costs, defendant has failed to provide adequate analysis

as to why this court should consider these damages in calculating

the amount in controversy. Finally, defendant attaches a survey of

verdicts in employment cases to this removal petition without

discussing why the cases in the survey are similar to the abovecaptioned case. 

"Because the ‘removal statutes are strictly construed against

removal,’ Libhardt v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064

(9th Cir. 1979), generally speaking doubts about removal must be

resolved in favor of remand." Dodd v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co.,

Case 2:05-cv-00332-LKK -KJM Document 8 Filed 04/19/05 Page 3 of 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

4

688 F. Supp. 564, 566 (E.D. Cal. 1988); see Matheson, 319 F.3d at

1090. Since defendant has not adequately established the amount

in controversy in the case at bar, the court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction and must remand the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby ORDERS the abovecaptioned case REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of

California in and for the County of Sacramento.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 18, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:05-cv-00332-LKK -KJM Document 8 Filed 04/19/05 Page 4 of 4