Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01466/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01466-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

O 

 JS-6

United States District Court 

Central District of California 

ANDREW MELONSON, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

TARGET CORPORATION; DOES 1 

through 100, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 2:15-cv-03526-ODW 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

REMAND [12] AND GRANTING 

MOTION TO TRANSFER [13]

I. INTRODUCTION 

There are two motions pending before the Court. The first is a Motion to 

Remand filed by Plaintiff Andrew Melonson. (ECF No. 12.) The second is a Motion 

to Transfer filed by Defendant Target Corporation (“Target”). (ECF No. 13.) The 

factual basis for this suit is Target’s alleged failure to accommodate Melonson’s workrelated shoulder injury. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the 

Melonson’s Motion to Remand and GRANTS Target’s Motion to Transfer.1

 

II. BACKGROUND 

In his Complaint, Melonson alleges that he injured his shoulder while working 

in a warehouse owned by Target. (Compl. ¶¶ 7–8.) The Complaint does not specify 

 

1

 After carefully considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to both Motions, the 

Court deems both matters appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 

7-15. 

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

Case 2:15-cv-01466-TLN-DAD Document 23 Filed 07/08/15 Page 1 of 6
 

2

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

when or where the injury occurred. Melonson was allegedly placed on temporary 

disability leave, underwent shoulder surgery, and was then denied disability 

accommodations by Target. (Id. ¶¶ 10–14.) Melonson’s Complaint raises six statelaw causes of action. (Id.) 

The Complaint was filed in California Superior Court on March 30, 2015. 

(ECF No. 1-1.) Target filed an Answer in state court on May 8, 2015. (ECF No. 1, 

¶ 6.) Target then removed the action to this Court on May 11, 2014 pursuant to 

diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (ECF No. 1.) In its Notice of 

Removal, Target alleges that its nerve center and place of incorporation is Minnesota. 

(Id. ¶ 9.) Target also alleges that the amount in controversy is approximately 

$103,000 despite the Complaint’s failure to specify a damages request. (Id. ¶ 12.) On 

June 2, 2015, Melonson filed the Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 12.) On June 9, 

2015, Target filed the Motion to Transfer. (ECF No. 13.) 

III. LEGAL STANDARDS 

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 

A suit filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the federal court 

has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), a 

district court has original jurisdiction over civil actions where the suit is between 

citizens of different states and the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and 

costs, exceeds $75,000. The removing defendant must file in the district court a 

notice of removal “containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal 

. . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). The Supreme Court recently held that “a defendant’s 

notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in 

controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold,” and need not contain evidentiary 

submissions. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 554 

(2014). But, “[e]vidence establishing the amount is required” where defendant’s 

assertion of the amount in controversy is contested by the plaintiff. Id. “In such a 

case, both sides submit proof and the court decides, by a preponderance of the 

Case 2:15-cv-01466-TLN-DAD Document 23 Filed 07/08/15 Page 2 of 6
 

3

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

evidence, whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied.” Id.

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B)). In proving the amount in controversy, “[t]he 

parties may submit evidence outside the complaint, including affidavits or 

declarations, or other summary-judgment-type evidence relevant to the amount in 

controversy at the time of removal.” Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 

1197 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

B. Proper Venue

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may transfer an action to any 

district or division “where the action might have originally been brought” in order to 

promote the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. A 

district court must make two findings: (1) the transferee court is one where the action 

“might have been brought,” and (2) the parties’ and witnesses’ conveniences, as well 

as the interests of justice, favor transfer. Metz v. U.S. Life Ins. Co., 674 F. Supp. 2d 

1141, 1145 (C.D. Cal. 2009); see also Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 414 

(9th Cir. 1985). 

IV. DISCUSSION 

A. Motion to Remand

 In his Motion to Remand, Melonson makes only one challenge to this Court’s 

subject-matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 12.) He argues that this Court lacks diversity 

jurisdiction under 32 U.S.C. § 1332 because Target’s Notice of Removal failed to 

prove by the preponderance of evidence that the amount in controversy is over 

$75,000. (Id. at 4.) 

Target’s Notice of Removal only needs to include “a plausible allegation that 

the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold,” see Dart Cherokee, 

135 S. Ct. at 554, and that allegation is indisputably present. Since Melonson now 

challenges Target’s plausible allegation, the Court turns to Target’s Opposition to the 

Motion to Remand to see whether Target provides “[e]vidence establishing the 

amount” in controversy. Id. 

Case 2:15-cv-01466-TLN-DAD Document 23 Filed 07/08/15 Page 3 of 6
 

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

 In its Opposition, Target offers numerous proposed calculations of damages in 

this case. Target first notes that Melonson’s Complaint seeks special damages, 

general damages (to include emotional distress), punitive damages, loss income, 

attorney’s fees, interest, and restitution. (Opp’n 1.) Target calculates Melonson’s lost 

wages, based on an annual salary of $47,300 and nine months off of the job at the time 

of removal, total $35,475. (Id. at 5–6.) Target then calculates prospective lost wages 

based on a weekly salary of $909.62, and concludes that Melonson’s lost wages will 

exceed $75,000 by April 18, 2016. (Id. at 6.) Should this case reach trial after April 

18, 2016, Target argues that lost wages alone exceed the jurisdictional amount. (Id.) 

 Target also argues that several of the statutory causes of action in this case 

authorize attorneys’ fees, and should Melonson’s attorneys bill at a conservative 

locality rate of $400 per hour, the attorneys’ fees will likely reach $40,000 by the time 

the case proceeds to trial. (Id. at 7 [citing Arroyo v. Svela, No. 2:10-cv-7814, 2012 

WL 3308427, *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2012) (finding an hourly rate of $425 was 

reasonable in an ADA case brought by attorneys working at the Center for Disability 

Access, and a total fee award of $48,660 for 113 hours worked through bench trial 

was reasonable)].) Target further notes that punitive damages in similar actions could 

range from $60,000 to $40,000,000. (Id. at 8 [citing Simmons v. PRC Tech., 209 F. 

Supp. 2d 1029, 1033 (N.D. Cal. 2002).) Target also explains the high dollar amounts 

awarded for emotional distress in comparable disability right’s actions. (Id. at 9.) 

 Melonson did not even bother to file a Reply. Thus, the Court only has Target’s 

calculations to determine whether the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates 

that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. All of Target’s calculations and 

estimates are reasonable, and the Court sees no reason to doubt Target’s claim that the 

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Since Target carried its burden of proof on 

this point, the Court concludes that this matter may be properly heard in federal court. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:15-cv-01466-TLN-DAD Document 23 Filed 07/08/15 Page 4 of 6
 

5

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

B. Motion to Transfer 

 Seven days after Melonson filed his Motion to Remand, Target filed its Motion 

to Transfer. (ECF No. 13.) In its Motion, Target argues that none of the facts 

described in Melonson’s Complaint occurred within the Central District. (Id. at 2.) 

Target argues that the warehouse where Melonson was allegedly injured is located in 

Yolo County, a county within the Eastern District of California. (Id.) Target further 

argues that all of the witnesses in this action and Melonson’s home of record are also 

in the Eastern District of California. (Id.) Target submitted competent evidence in 

support of these arguments. (See ECF Nos. 16 [“Klarfeld Decl.”], 17 [“Barry 

Decl.”].) 

 Melonson’s Reply merely argues that this Court cannot transfer the case 

because it does not have jurisdiction under 32 U.S.C. § 1332. (ECF No. 21.) 

Melonson makes no attempt to contest Target’s venue arguments. Based on the 

unrebutted evidence submitted by Target, it appears that this action could have been 

filed in the Eastern District of California. The unrebutted evidence also demonstrates 

that it is in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties to transfer this 

case to the district that encompasses all witnesses and the warehouse where the 

alleged wrongdoing occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:15-cv-01466-TLN-DAD Document 23 Filed 07/08/15 Page 5 of 6
 

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

V. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Melonson’s Motion to 

Remand (ECF No. 12) and GRANTS Target’s Motion to Transfer (ECF No. 13). The 

Clerk of the Court shall hereby TRANSFER this case to the Eastern District of 

California, Sacramento Division. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 July 8, 2015

 ____________________________________ 

 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-01466-TLN-DAD Document 23 Filed 07/08/15 Page 6 of 6