Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02780/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02780-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MORRIS CERULLO WORLD

EVANGELISM, INC., a California

corporation,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 13cv2780 BTM(BLM)

ORDER RE: ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE

v.

WORLD RELIGIOUS RELIEF, Inc. (dba

“WORLD NETWORK”), a Michigan

corporation; and DOES 1 through 25,

inclusive,

Defendants.

Having reviewed Defendants’ and Plaintiff’s responses to this Court’s

September 2, 2014 Order to Show Cause why the matter satisfies the amount

in controversy for diversity subject matter jurisdiction, the Court is satisfied that

Defendants have met their burden of proving the existence of the jurisdictional

amount.

I. BACKGROUND

In October, 2013, this suit was commenced by Plaintiff in the Superior

Court of California, County of San Diego. Plaintiff sued Defendants for breach

of contract, deceit, negligent misrepresentation and conversion arising from

1 13cv2780 BTM(BLM)

Case 3:13-cv-02780-BTM-BLM Document 14 Filed 10/20/14 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

Plaintiff’s alleged payment of $ 17,000 for a slot of 2013 broadcast time, which

Defendants instead applied to a disputed debt from 2011, and Defendants’

failure to air Plaintiff’s 2013 program. 

On November 22, 2013, Defendants removed the action to this Court.

On December 3, 2013, Defendants moved to dismiss or transfer based

on improper venue, and also filed their answer with a jury trial demand.

On September 2, 2014, this Court denied Defendants’ motion to transfer,

and ordered Defendants to show cause why this case should not be remanded

to the California Superior Court for lack of diversity subject matter jurisdiction

based on a failure to show damages sufficient to support the jurisdictional

amount.

II. DISCUSSION

Upon reviewing Defendants’ supplemental argument in their Brief in

Response to the Order to Show Cause, the Court finds that Defendants, as the

removing party, have met their burden of establishing that removal is proper. 

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

Removal jurisdiction founded on diversity requires the parties to be in

complete diversity with an amount in controversy exceeding $ 75,000. See

Matheson v. Progressive Speciality Ins. Co.,319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir.

2003); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). A removing defendant must prove the amount

in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence where plaintiff’s demanded

amount is uncertain from the face of the complaint. Matheson,319 F.3d at

1090; Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 403 (9th Cir.1996). 

Under this burden, the defendant must provide evidence establishing that it is

“more likely than not” that the amount in controversy exceeds $ 75,000. 

Sanchez, 102 F.3d at 404. Conclusory allegations are insufficient, but the court

will consider “facts presented in the removal petition as well as summary2 13cv2780 BTM(BLM)

Case 3:13-cv-02780-BTM-BLM Document 14 Filed 10/20/14 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

judgment-type evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time of

removal.” Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090-91 (internal citations omitted). 

Here, the Complaint raises a claim for breach of contract, tort claims of

deceit, negligent misrepresentation and conversion, and an equitable claim for

common counts. (Ex. A to Notice of Removal, Complaint). The Complaint

requests damages arising from two alleged incidents: (1) an advance payment

of $17,000 Plaintiff made to Defendant in furtherance of their 2013 Broadcast

Agreement by which Plaintiff engaged Defendants to air its program 5 times per

week for 1 year at $2000 per broadcast, and; (2) additional damages

foreseeable to Defendants that resulted from Defendants’ failure to air the initial

June 17, 2013 broadcast and the remaining broadcast schedule, which Plaintiff

claims resulted in failure to earn funds for its operations through donations that

would have been solicited on the program (Compl. ¶¶ 16-19). 

Plaintiff claims that Defendants knew that it used programming

broadcasts like those negotiated in the 2013 Broadcast Agreement to raise

funds for its operations, and that prior solicitation campaigns successfully raised

donations of “multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars.” (Compl. ¶ 17; Notice

of Removal ¶ 5 ). Plaintiff also claims that Defendants were aware that Plaintiff

incurred expenses - of an unspecified amount - to market future broadcasts and

staff and operate call centers during those broadcasts (Compl. ¶ 17). 

Additionally, Plaintiff claims punitive damages with respect to its deceit,

negligent misrepresentation and conversion claims under California Code of

Civil Procedure § 3294 (Compl. ¶¶ 36, 43, 49). Lastly, the Complaint requests

that all damages (in amounts to be proven at trial) be paid with interest,

requests litigation costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, and “further relief

deemed just and proper.” (Id. ¶ 27, 35, 42, 48).

By presenting the Court with factual assertions from the Notice of

Removal and Complaint in which Plaintiff places in controversy amounts of

3 13cv2780 BTM(BLM)

Case 3:13-cv-02780-BTM-BLM Document 14 Filed 10/20/14 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

“multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars” in lost profits, Defendants show that

the jurisdictional threshold is surpassed. However, the estimate of the total

amount in dispute is not a prospective assessment of Defendant’s liability, and

the likelihood of Plaintiff’s recovery of the claimed lost profits is relevant only so

far as it pertains to reaching the jurisdictional amount. See Lewis v. Verizon

Communications, Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 400 (9th Cir. 2010); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

Additionally, Plaintiff’s pleas for punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and other

equitable relief are to be included in the jurisdictional calculation. See

Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 700 (9th Cir. 2007).1

Applying the “preponderance of the evidence standard,” this Court finds

that it is “more likely than not” that the sum of the specifically stated economic

damages of $ 17,000 and the “multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars” in

allegedly forseeable lost profits exceeds the jurisdictional amount of $ 75,000.

See id. at 688, 701. 

Defendants having established that the Court has subject matter

jurisdiction over this action, the Court finds that removal was proper. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, Defendants have met their burden of

establishing that the amount in controversy exceeds $ 75,000 and the Court

will not dismiss the case at this time.

DATED: October 20, 2014

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

1

“Section 1332(a)’s amount-in-controversy requirement excludes only “interest and costs” and therefore includes attorneys’ fees.” Guglielmino, 506 F.3d at 700. 

4 13cv2780 BTM(BLM)

Case 3:13-cv-02780-BTM-BLM Document 14 Filed 10/20/14 Page 4 of 4