Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_16-cv-08000/USCOURTS-azd-3_16-cv-08000-0/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WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Mary E. Shefferd, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Drury Hotels Company, LLC, 

Defendant.

No. CV-16-08000-PCT-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is Defendant’s Notice of Removal (Doc. 1, Notice of Removal) filed on 

January 5, 2016. The Court has reviewed the Notice of Removal and Plaintiff’s 

Complaint and finds that Defendant’s allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds 

$75,000 is not yet plausible.

Federal courts may exercise removal jurisdiction over a case only if subject matter 

jurisdiction exists. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 

(9th Cir. 2004). The removing party bears the burden of providing a signed notice of 

removal that contains a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1446(a). 

 Here, Defendant has asserted diversity jurisdiction as the basis for removal. 

(Notice of Removal ¶ 15.) Diversity jurisdiction exists in actions between citizens of 

different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest 

and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The Supreme Court has concluded that, under § 1446(a), 

“a defendant’s notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount 

in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. 

Case 3:16-cv-08000-JJT Document 6 Filed 01/07/16 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 

v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 554 (2014). “Evidence establishing the amount is required by 

§ 1446(c)(2)(B) only when the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the defendant’s 

allegation.” Id. 

 In this instance, the Court questions Defendant’s allegation that the amount in 

controversy threshold is met here. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges only that she was 

injured when she slipped and fell on stairs maintained by Defendant. (Doc. 1-1 at 2-7, 

Compl. ¶ 14.) The Complaint contains no allegations of Plaintiff’s damages or the nature 

and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries. In the Notice of Removal, Defendant states that it sought 

clarification from Plaintiff of the amount of damages sought, but Defendant received no 

response. (Notice of Removal ¶ 15.) The Notice of Removal provides no other support 

for Defendant’s allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 in this matter, 

and that allegation is thus wholly conclusory. 

 When a defendant’s assertion of the amount in controversy is challenged—here, 

by the Court—then “both sides submit proof and the court decides, by a preponderance of 

the evidence, whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied.” Dart 

Cherokee Basin, 135 S. Ct. at 554. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has noted that the 

Supreme Court did not decide the procedure for each side to submit proof, leaving district 

courts to set such procedure. See Ibarra v. Manheim Inv., 775 F.3d 1193, 1199-1200 (9th 

Cir. 2015) (citing Dart Cherokee Basin, 135 S. Ct. at 554). “[E]vidence may be direct or 

circumstantial,” and “a damages assessment may require a chain of reasoning that 

includes assumptions.” Id. at 1199. “When this is so, those assumptions cannot be pulled 

from thin air but need some reasonable ground underlying them.” Id. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff and Defendant shall each submit to 

the Court any proof of the amount in controversy in this matter by January 22, 2016. 

 Dated this 7th day of January, 2016. 

 

 Honorable John J. Tuchi 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-08000-JJT Document 6 Filed 01/07/16 Page 2 of 2