Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05899/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05899-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAUL NAVARRETE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

RICOH USA, INC. ET AL.,

Defendants. /

No. 16-5899 CRB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

REMAND

Plaintiff Raul Navarette was hit by a car, fracturing his spine and sustaining additional

injuries. See Notice of Removal (dkt. 1) Ex. 1 (Complaint) ¶ 6. He provided his employer,

RICOH, with his medical records, and inquired about accommodations. See id. ¶¶ 7–8. 

Shortly thereafter, RICOH asserted that Plaintiff had abandoned his job, and terminated him. 

See id. ¶ 9. Plaintiff brought suit in state court, alleging disability discrimination, failure to

provide reasonable accommodation, failure to engage in good faith interactive process,

failure to prevent discrimination, and wrongful termination—all state court claims. See

generally id. Defendant RICOH removed the case to this Court, asserting diversity

jurisdiction. See Notice of Removal ¶¶ 11–12. Plaintiff now moves to remand, arguing that

Defendant cannot establish sufficient facts to support the amount in controversy requirement

of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Mot. to Remand (dkt. 10). The Court finds this matter suitable for

resolution without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), and vacates the 

Case 3:16-cv-05899-CRB Document 12 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 2
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 1

 The Court declines to enter Defendant’s requested order requiring Plaintiff to stipulate to

seeking less than the jurisdictional minimum. See Opp’n (dkt. 11) at 7.

2

motion hearing currently calendared for December 16, 2016.

“[T]he proponent of federal jurisdiction . . . has the burden to prove, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, that removal is proper.” Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v.

Estate of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1106–07 (9th Cir. 2010). The removal

statute is “strictly construe[d] . . . against removal jurisdiction.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980

F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). “Where doubt regarding the right to removal

exists, a case should be remanded to state court.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins.

Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). Notwithstanding Defendant’s speculation about

extensive attorneys’ fees and punitive damages, Defendant has failed to demonstrate that

Plaintiff’s damages, stemming from the loss of his $14.75 per hour job, see Dixon Decl. (dkt.

11-3) ¶ 2, more likely than not exceed $75,000. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to remand.1 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2016 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-05899-CRB Document 12 Filed 12/05/16 Page 2 of 2