Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05634/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05634-2/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICIA RILE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STRS OHIO CA REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT

1, LLC,

Defendant. /

No. 09-05634 CW

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO REMAND

Plaintiff Patricia Rile moves to remand this action to state

court and seeks to recover attorneys’ fees incurred in filing the

motion. Defendant STRS Ohio CA Real Estate Investments 1 opposes

the motion. Having considered all of the papers filed by the

parties, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to remand and DENIES

as moot Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a seventy-three-year-old woman with chronic

pulmonary disease. On October 22, 2009, Plaintiff filed a

complaint for damages alleging that Defendant negligently owned,

operated and maintained the residential apartment building in which

Plaintiff lives. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the manner

in which Defendant carried out construction and repairs at the

Case 4:09-cv-05634-CW Document 25 Filed 05/03/10 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

apartment building created “dangerous, harmful, and damaging levels

of dust and other residue that entered and permeated Plaintiff’s

rental unit.” Compl. ¶ 7. During the construction, Plaintiff was

forced to live somewhere else “due to the uninhabitable condition

of her rental unit and the adjacent premises.” Id. Defendant’s

actions exacerbated her existing respiratory illness. Id. at ¶ 23.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges six causes of action:

(1) negligence, (2) breach of implied warranty of habitability,

(3) nuisance, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress,

(5) constructive eviction and (6) violation of California Welfare

and Institutions Code section 15657.

On November 30, 2009, Defendant filed a notice of removal

asserting diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

Defendant stated, “Although the Complaint in the State Court Action

does not expressly state the amount in controversy, Plaintiff’s

counsel has informally demanded $75,000 to resolve the action;

given a settlement demand of $75,000, it is apparent that the

amount in controversy allegedly exceeds $75,000.” Notice of

Removal, 3. On December 29, 2009, Plaintiff filed this motion to

remand based on Defendant’s failure to carry its burden of proof

that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

LEGAL STANDARD

A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to

federal district court so long as the district court could have

exercised original jurisdiction over the matter. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1441(a). District courts have original jurisdiction over all

civil actions “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or

Case 4:09-cv-05634-CW Document 25 Filed 05/03/10 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between 

. . . citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). If at

any time before judgment it appears that the district court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction over a case previously removed from

state court, the case must be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). On a

motion to remand, the scope of the removal statute must be strictly

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

“The ‘strong presumption’ against removal jurisdiction means that

the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is

proper.” Id. Courts should resolve doubts as to removability in

favor of remanding the case to state court. Id.

To support removal based on diversity jurisdiction in cases

where a plaintiff’s complaint does not specify a particular amount

of damages, the removing defendant bears the burden of

establishing, by a preponderance of evidence, that the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co.,

102 F. 3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). The district court may

consider whether it is “facially apparent” from the complaint that

the jurisdictional amount is in controversy. Singer v. State Farm

Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997). If the

complaint is silent on the amount of damages claimed, the court may

also consider facts in the removal petition, and

“summary-judgment-type evidence relevant to the amount in

controversy at the time of removal.” Id. (quoting Allen v. R. & H.

Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335-36 (5th Cir. 1995)). 

A speculative argument as to the amount in controversy is

insufficient. Gaus, 980 F.2d at 567. The defendant bears the

Case 4:09-cv-05634-CW Document 25 Filed 05/03/10 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 4

burden of “actually providing . . . facts to support . . . [the]

jurisdictional amount.” Id. The amount in controversy includes

claims for general and special damages (excluding costs and

interest), attorneys’ fees, if recoverable by statute or contract,

and punitive damages, if recoverable as a matter of law. Richmond

v. Allstate, Ins. Co., 897 F. Supp. 447, 450 (S.D. Cal. 1995). 

On granting a motion to remand, the court may order the

defendant to pay the plaintiff its “just costs and any actual

expenses, including attorneys fees, incurred as a result of the

removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

DISCUSSION

The parties do not dispute diversity of citizenship. 

Instead, this motion turns on whether the requisite amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000. Defendant relies primarily on

Plaintiff’s pre-removal settlement offer of $75,000. Plaintiff

argues that Federal Rule of Evidence 408(a) prevents the Court from

considering this evidence. However, Rule 408(a) prohibits the use

of statements made in settlement discussions when used to prove

liability. Defendant is not attempting to use the settlement offer

for that purpose. In fact, the Ninth Circuit has held that a

“settlement letter is relevant evidence of the amount in

controversy if it appears to reflect a reasonable estimate of the

plaintiff’s claim.” Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 873, 840 (9th

Cir 2001). Plaintiff does not argue that her case is worth less

than $75,000. Rather, she focuses her efforts on arguing that

Defendant has not carried its burden to prove that the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000. Plaintiff’s willingness to settle

Case 4:09-cv-05634-CW Document 25 Filed 05/03/10 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 5

this case for $75,000 is strong evidence that she considers the

case to be worth more than this amount. On this basis alone,

Defendant has satisfied the requirements for removal under

§§ 1441(a) and 1332(a).

Although the complaint itself does not explicitly request

damages in excess of $75,000, it can be reasonably interpreted to

say as much. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant “seriously injured

her health, strength, and activity” which has caused her “great

mental, physical, and nervous pain and suffering . . . in an amount

in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this court.” Compl.

¶ 8. The jurisdictional minimum of the state court in which

Plaintiff filed her claims is $25,000. Although Plaintiff does not

state a specific amount of damages she seeks for emotional

distress, “the vagueness of plaintiff's pleadings with regard to

emotional distress damages should not preclude the court from

noting that these damages are potentially substantial." Richmond,

897 F. Supp. at 450. Thus, although Plaintiff does not request a

specific amount of non-economic damages in his complaint, the Court

will consider the potential for these damages in determining the

amount in controversy in this case.

Plaintiff also seeks reimbursement of over $11,000 in rent as

well as an unspecified amount in relocation expenses. Compl.,

¶¶ 10, 16. Plaintiff requests reimbursement for her past and

future medical expenses, which are “unknown to Plaintiff at this

time” because she continues to receive treatment for her injuries. 

Id. at ¶¶ 9-10. Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages pursuant to

her causes of action for nuisance, intentional infliction of

Case 4:09-cv-05634-CW Document 25 Filed 05/03/10 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 6

emotional distress, constructive eviction and violation of Welfare

and Institutions Code section 15657. A court can consider punitive

damages in calculating the amount in controversy. See Bell v.

Preferred Life Assur. Soc. of Montgomery Ala., 320 U.S. 238, 240

(1943) ("Where both actual and punitive damages are recoverable

under a complaint each must be considered to the extent claimed in

determining jurisdictional amount.").

If Plaintiff were to prevail under her sixth cause of action

for elder abuse, she would be entitled to attorneys’ fees under

Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657(a). In Galt G/S v. JSS

Scandinavia, the Ninth Circuit held that “where an underlying

statute authorizes an award of attorneys’ fees, either with

mandatory or discretionary language, such fees may be included in

the amount in controversy.” 142 F.3d 1150, 1156 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s request of $2,300 in

attorneys’ fees for the preparation of the instant motion is

evidence of the fact that attorneys’ fees will play a large part in

the matter. Defendant has provided sufficient evidence to

demonstrate that the Court can reasonably anticipate thousands of

dollars in attorneys' fees. Plaintiff’s claims will likely require

a great deal of preparation and effort to maintain, and at

Plaintiff’s attorneys’ claimed rates ranging between $250 and $425

an hour, fees will likely become substantial. 

Although attorneys’ fees alone may not exceed the requisite

$75,000, these fees, combined with actual damages related to

Plaintiff’s continuing medical expenses and substantial potential

awards for punitive damages and emotional distress, will clearly

Case 4:09-cv-05634-CW Document 25 Filed 05/03/10 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 7

exceed the jurisdictional minimum. 

CONCLUSION

Because Defendant has satisfied its burden of establishing

diversity jurisdiction, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to

remand and request for attorneys’ fees. (Docket no. 12).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 05/03/10 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-05634-CW Document 25 Filed 05/03/10 Page 7 of 7