Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01327/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01327-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1

19-CV-1327 JLS (MDD)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAKE NOCH, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

INDEPENDENT FILM 

DEVELOPMENT CORP. (IFLM), a 

dissolved and defunct Wyoming 

Corporation; and THEO HANSON, in his 

capacity as the present CEO if IFLM,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19-CV-1327 JLS (MDD)

ORDER: (1) REMANDING ACTION 

TO THE DISTRICT COURT, FIRST 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT FOR THE 

COUNTY OF LARAMIE, STATE OF 

WYOMING, AND (2) DENYING AS 

MOOT THEO HANSON’S MOTION 

TO INTERVENE

(ECF Nos. 1, 4)

Presently before the Court are Defendants Independent Film Development Corp. and 

Theo Hanson’s Notice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (Diversity) (“Not. 

of Removal,” ECF No. 1) and Defendant Theo Hanson’s Motion to Intervene (“Mot.,” ECF 

No. 4). On July 16, 2019, Defendants removed this action from the District Court, First 

Judicial District of the State of Wyoming, County of Laramie on the grounds that the 

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and there exists complete diversity among the 

parties. See id. ¶¶ 6–11. Although an action may be removed to “the district court . . . for 

the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending,” see 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1442(a), Defendants improperly removed to this District rather than the United States 

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-01327-JLS-MDD Document 5 Filed 07/30/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

19-CV-1327 JLS (MDD)

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

District Court for the District of Wyoming on the grounds of forum non-conveniens. See 

Not. of Removal ¶¶ 12–14.

Although Plaintiff did not file a motion to remand, “[t]he court may—indeed must—

remand an action sua sponte if it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” GFD, 

LLC v. Carter, No. CV 12-08985 MMM FFMX, 2012 WL 5830079, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 

15, 2012) (citing Kelton Arms Condominium Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 

F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final 

judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall 

be remanded.”).

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

authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 

U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Consequently, it is “presume[d] that federal courts lack jurisdiction 

unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.” DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. 

Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 (2006) (quoting Renne v. Geary, 501 U.S. 312, 316 (1991)). “The 

right of removal is entirely a creature of statute and a suit commenced in a state court must 

remain there until cause is shown for its transfer under some act of Congress.” Syngenta

Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002). The party invoking the removal 

statute bears the burden of establishing that federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists. 

Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). Moreover, courts 

“strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 

980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Boggs v. Lewis, 863 F.2d 662, 663 (9th Cir. 

1988)); Takeda v. Nw. Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 818 (9th Cir. 1985)). Therefore, 

“[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in 

the first instance.” Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 (citing Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 

F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979)).

Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction “where the amount in controversy” 

exceeds $75,000, and the parties are of “diverse” state citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

“Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is in 

Case 3:19-cv-01327-JLS-MDD Document 5 Filed 07/30/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

19-CV-1327 JLS (MDD)

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

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 Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam); accord Valdez v. 

Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Matheson, 319 F.3d at 

1090). “Where doubt regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be remanded to 

state court.” Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090.

Here, the underlying Complaint indicates that Plaintiff “has invested in excess of 

$50,000 to acquire common stock of ILFM.” See Compl. (ECF No. 1-2 Ex. A) ¶ 3. 

Plaintiff also alleges that he “has incurred substantial attorneys’ fees to enforce his rights,” 

see id. ¶ 25, and therefore seeks “his costs and expenses in bringing this matter, including 

a reasonable attorney’s fee.” Id. at Prayer. Because it is not facially evident from the 

Complaint that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, it is Defendant’s burden to 

prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds the 

$75,000 jurisdictional threshold. See Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090. 

Defendants’ Notice of Removal contends that removal is proper because the 

“unspecified damages ‘in excess of $50,000’ (¶ 3) plus substantial expenses, costs, and 

attorney fees which are asserted by [Plaintiff] herein to actually be more than $75,000, 

exclusive of interest and costs.” Not. of Removal ¶ 6. “[As] a general rule, attorneys’ fees 

are excludable in determining the amount in controversy because, normally, the successful 

party does not collect his attorneys’ fees in addition to or as part of the judgment.” Galt 

G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Velez v. Crown Life 

Ins. Co., 599 F.2d 471, 474 (1st Cir. 1979)). But “attorneys’ fees can be taken into account 

in determining the amount in controversy if a statute [or contract] authorizes fees to a 

successful litigant.” Id. (quoting Goldberg v. CPC Int’l Inc., 678 F.2d 1365, 1367 (9th Cir. 

1992), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 945 (1982)). 

Neither the Complaint nor Defendants cite any contractual provision or statute 

authorizing Plaintiff to recover attorneys’ fees here; accordingly, Defendant has failed to 

carry its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in 

Case 3:19-cv-01327-JLS-MDD Document 5 Filed 07/30/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

19-CV-1327 JLS (MDD)

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

controversy exceeds the $75,000 threshold. See, e.g., McCaa v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 

330 F. Supp. 2d 1143, 1150 (D. Nev. 2004) (“[The defendant], therefore, has not met its 

burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that attorneys’ fees, coupled with 

compensatory damages and other relief that Plaintiff seeks, would more likely than not 

exceed the statutory minimum.”) (citing Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 

398, 403–04 (9th Cir. 1996)); Johnson v. Am. Online, Inc., 280 F. Supp. 2d 1018, 1026 

(N.D. Cal. 2003) (“Defendant has failed to make a showing that [the plaintiff]’s claim 

exceeds $75,000. While it may well be true that his claim (including . . . attorney’s fees) 

will ultimately exceed $75,000, defendant has not met its burden to demonstrate this fact 

by a preponderance of the evidence.”). The Court therefore REMANDS this action to the

District Court, First Judicial District for the County of Laramie, State of Wyoming and 

DENIES AS MOOT Ms. Hanson’s pending Motion to Intervene (ECF No. 4).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 30, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-01327-JLS-MDD Document 5 Filed 07/30/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4