Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01270/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01270-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

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

KEVIN BAYERLEIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DeWALT INDUSTRIAL TOOL CO., et

al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 12-cv-1270-L(WMc)

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO

STATE COURT

On April 6, 2012, Kevin Bayerlein commenced this action against defendants in the

Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of San Diego. Plaintiff alleges

three claims: negligent products liability, strict product liability and breach of implied warranty 

arising out an injury allegedly caused by defendants’ product, a Chop Saw. On May 24, 2012,

defendants filed a notice of removal, removing this action to this Court. The notice of removal is

based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441.

For the following reasons, the Court finds that Defendant’s Notice of Removal is facially

deficient and REMANDS this action to the San Diego Superior Court.

//

12cv1270

Case 3:12-cv-01270-L-WMC Document 9 Filed 06/15/12 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

27

28

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of

Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “They possess only that power authorized by Constitution or a

statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Id. (internal citations omitted). “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.” Id. (internal citations omitted); 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);

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. “Federal 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. 

Although there has not been a request to remand, it is well-established that “a district

court’s duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction is not contingent upon the parties’

arguments.” See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966 (9th

Cir. 2004). Courts may consider the issue sua sponte. Demery v. Kupperman, 735 F.2d 1139,

1149 n.8 (9th Cir. 1984). Indeed, the Supreme Court has emphasized that “district courts have

an ‘independent obligation to address subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte.’” Grupo Dataflux v.

Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004) (quoting United States v. S. Cal. Edison Co.,

300 F. Supp. 2d 964, 972 (E.D. Cal. 2004)).

II. ANALYSIS

In attempting to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, defendants must prove that

there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and that the amount in controversy

exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. To determine whether the amount in controversy has been

2 12cv1270

Case 3:12-cv-01270-L-WMC Document 9 Filed 06/15/12 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

27

28

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). And the defendants “must provide evidence that it

is ‘more likely than not’ that the amount in controversy” satisfies the federal diversity

jurisdictional amount requirement. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th

Cir. 1996). Defendants fail to satisfy that requirement. See 42 U.S.C. § 1332.

Here, plaintiff seeks general and special damages for medical expenses, loss wages and

impaired earning capacity. A precise value for the amount in controversy is not given in the

complaint. 

In their notice of removal, defendants assert on information and belief the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000. Defendants indicate that statements from plaintiff’s medical

providers totals $35,691.43. With respect to other amounts in question, defendants do not

provide any concrete values or evidence that a particular value may contribute to exceeding the

jurisdictional threshold.

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER

In light of the foregoing, the facts presented in the notice of removal do not meet the

burden of establishing removal jurisdiction. The sole values to support defendants’ removal

amount to $35,691.43. “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). Therefore,

the Court REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the

County of San Diego, Central Division, Case No. 37-2012-00095247-CU-PO-CTL Superior

Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 14, 2012

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

/ / /

/ / /

3 12cv1270

Case 3:12-cv-01270-L-WMC Document 9 Filed 06/15/12 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

27

28

COPY TO: 

HON. WILLIAM McCURINE, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

4 12cv1270

Case 3:12-cv-01270-L-WMC Document 9 Filed 06/15/12 Page 4 of 4