Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01499/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01499-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Motor Vehicle 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 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICOLE CAMPBELL and PATRICE

GREEN,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

BRIDGSTONE/FIRESTONE, INC., et al.,

)

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV F 05-1499 FVS DLB 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR REMAND 

On January 7, 2006, plaintiffs, filed the present Motion to Remand. The motion was

heard on March 10, 2006 before the undersigned. Steven O’Reilly appeared for plaintiffs,

Brendan M. Ford appeared for defendant Ford Motor Company and Mary P. Lightfoot appeared

for defendant Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire. 

BACKGROUND

Nicole Campbell and Patrice Green (“plaintiffs”) filed the instant products liability action

on September 19, 2005 in the Kern County Superior Court against Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., et

al. (“defendants”) alleging numerous claims for relief arising out of a single vehicle rollover

accident involving a 2001 Ford Explorer equipped with Firestone tires.

Case 1:05-cv-01499-FVS-DLB Document 28 Filed 03/17/06 Page 1 of 6
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

 On December 6, 2005 Bridgestone/Firestone filed a Notice of a Related case and the MDL Panel issued a

1

Conditional Transfer Order on January 4, 2006. The parties are currently awaiting notice regarding the transfer.

2

On November 22, 2005, defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) removed the case to

this Court on diversity grounds. In the present motion, plaintiff seeks an order remanding this

1

action to the Kern County Superior Court on the ground that defendants have not proven facts by

a preponderance that the amount in controversy as to each plaintiff’s claim is in excess of

$75,000.00 and therefore diversity does not exist and the District Court is without jurisdiction.

On February 20, 2006, Ford filed an opposition to plaintiffs’ motion arguing that the

amount in controversy is facially apparent from the complaint, the underlying facts support

removal and plaintiffs’ counsel has made statements that confirm the case is in the proper

jurisdiction. On February 21, 2006, defendant Bridgestone filed a joinder in Ford’s opposition. 

DISCUSSION

28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a) provides for federal jurisdiction based on diversity of

citizenship: 

(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil

actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value

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

 (1) citizens of different States;

 (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state;

 (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects

of a foreign state are additional parties; and

 (4) a foreign state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title, as

plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.

For the purposes of this section, section 1335, and section 1441, an

alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall

be deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled.

28. U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

A civil action originally filed in a State court which could have been commenced in

federal court based on diversity jurisdiction may be removed from state court to U.S. District

Court on this ground. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).

Case 1:05-cv-01499-FVS-DLB Document 28 Filed 03/17/06 Page 2 of 6
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

The amount in controversy for jurisdictional purposes is determined by the amount of

damages or the value of the property that is the subject of the action. Hunt v. Washington State

Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 347-348 (1977). The United States Supreme Court

has held that “(w)here both actual and punitive damages are recoverable under a complaint each

must be considered to the extent claimed in determining the jurisdictional amount” for diversity

jurisdiction. Bell v. Preferred Life Assur. Soc. of Montgomery, Ala., 320 U.S. 238, 240, 64 S.Ct.

5, 6 (1943). 

Where a state court complaint is silent as to the amount of damages sought by plaintiff,

defendant must allege and bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir.

1992). 

In determining whether the amount in controversy is proper for diversity jurisdiction, the

Ninth Circuit has “ . . . endorsed the Fifth Circuit's practice of considering facts presented in the

removal petition as well as any ‘summary-judgement-type evidence relevant to the amount in

controversy at the time of removal.’” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. 319 F.3d 1089,

1090 (9th Cir. 2003); citing Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir.

1997) (quoting Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1995)).

In cases involving multiple plaintiffs, the removing defendant need only show that one of

the plaintiffs has an amount in controversy greater than $75,000.00. Exxon Mobil Corp. v.

Allapattah Servs., 125 S.Ct. 2611, 2615 (2005)[where the other elements of jurisdiction are

present and at least one named plaintiff in the action satisfies the amount in controversy

requirement, § 1367 does authorize supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of other plaintiffs

Case 1:05-cv-01499-FVS-DLB Document 28 Filed 03/17/06 Page 3 of 6
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

in the same Article III case or controversy, even if those claims are for less than the jurisdictional

amount.] 

Here, there is no dispute that complete diversity of citizenship exists between plaintiffs

and defendants. However, as stated above, in addition to diversity of citizenship, it must be

ascertainable at the time of removal that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Plaintiff

argues defendants have failed to carry their burden to show damages exceeding $75,000.00 and

therefore this action should be remanded to state court.

In support of removal jurisdiction, defendants point to the complaint which states that this

action is “an unlimited case” (exceeds $25,000); plaintiffs are asserting strict products liability,

negligence, and breach of warranty claims against both Ford and Firestone; and the complaint

seeks compensatory damages for wage loss, loss of use of property, hospital and medical

expenses, general damage, property damage and lose of earning capacity. Defendants argue the

asserted damages make it facially apparent that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. 

Defendants also point to the Traffic Collision Report (“TCR”) in which the investigating officer

marked “severe injury” for both plaintiffs. The TCR goes on to describe Green’s injuries as

“head trauma, broken right arm, broken wrist, deep laceration to lower left leg.” Ms. Green was

transported by air to Kern Medical Center and she was unable to provide a statement. The TCR

states that Cambpell suffered a “complaint of pain in chest, back, possible fractured collarbone

and both arms possibly broken.” Defendants therefore argue that in addition to the facially

apparent damage assertions, the underlying facts make it more likely than not that the amount in

controversy is greater than $75,000. 

Plaintiffs have provided no contrary evidence in support of their motion to remand. 

Case 1:05-cv-01499-FVS-DLB Document 28 Filed 03/17/06 Page 4 of 6
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

Accordingly, the Court finds that defendants have met their burden of establishing by a

preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 for purposes

of diversity jurisdiction. 

Additionally, plaintiff concedes that the jurisdictional amount is met as to plaintiff Green. 

Consequently, the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Campbell’s claims pursuant

to Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., 125 S.Ct. 2611, 2615 (2005). Federal Court’s having

original jurisdiction in a civil action can exercise “supplemental jurisdiction” over other claims

so related to the original claim as to be part of the same constitutional case or controversy. See

28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., 125 S.Ct. at 2614, the Supreme

Court held that § 1367 permits the exercise of diversity jurisdiction over additional plaintiffs who

fail to satisfy the minimum amount in controversy requirement, as long as other elements of

diversity jurisdiction are present and at least one named plaintiff satisfies the amount in

controversy requirement. The Court stated:

When a well-pleaded complaint has at least one claim satisfying the amount-incontroversy requirement, and there are no other relevant jurisdictional defects, the

district court, beyond all question, has original jurisdiction over that claim. A

court with original jurisdiction over a single claim in the complaint has original

jurisdiction over a "civil action" under § 1367(a), even if that action comprises

fewer claims than were included in the complaint. Once a court has original

jurisdiction over the action, it can then decide whether it has a constitutional and

statutory basis for exercising supplemental jurisdiction over other claims in the

action . . . The Court cannot accept the alternative view, or its supporting theories,

that a district court lacks original jurisdiction over a civil action unless it has

original jurisdiction over every claim in the complaint.

Pursuant to Exxon, this Court has original jurisdiction over this civil action and therefore

it was properly removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. 

Case 1:05-cv-01499-FVS-DLB Document 28 Filed 03/17/06 Page 5 of 6
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

Having read and considered the pleadings submitted in support of the present motion and

having considered the arguments made at the hearing, the court finds that defendants have

satisfied their burden of proving the requisite amount in controversy. Therefore, plaintiff’s

motion to remand removed action is HEREBY DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 17, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01499-FVS-DLB Document 28 Filed 03/17/06 Page 6 of 6