Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01681/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01681-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENNY PARKER and BOB PARKER,

NO. CIV. S-05-1681 LKK/GGH

Plaintiffs,

v. O R D E R

HO SPORTS COMPANY, INC.;

ACCURATE LINES, INC.; and

G.I. JOE’S, INC.,

Defendants.

 /

This matter is before the court on the petition of defendant

Ho Sports Company, Inc., (“defendant”) for removal predicated upon

the court’s diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. This

court has an independent duty to ascertain its jurisdiction and may

remand sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28

U.S.C. § 1447(c). Having invoked the removal statute, the

defendant bears the burden of establishing this court’s

jurisdiction. See Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195

(9th Cir. 1988). As explained below, defendant has failed to meet

Case 2:05-cv-01681-LKK -GGH Document 5 Filed 08/31/05 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

2

this burden. 

Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of

citizenship among the parties, as well as a minimum amount in

controversy of over $75,000. See id. While it appears that

diversity of citizenship is satisfied, defendant has not met its

burden of demonstrating that the amount in controversy exceeds

$75,000. Plaintiffs, Jenny and Bob Parker, filed a complaint on

June 24, 2005 in Siskiyou Superior Court alleging five causes of

action relating to injuries caused by the malfunction of a

wakeboard rope/handle manufactured by defendant. Nowhere in the

complaint do plaintiffs assign a value to the relief they seek.

"Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than

$75,000 is in controversy, the removing party must prove, by a

preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy meets

the jurisdictional threshold." Matheson v. Progressive Specialty

Insurance Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003); see Sanchez v.

Monumental Life Insurance Co. , 95 F.3d 856, 860 (9th Cir. 1996).

Defendant concedes that the complaint “does not allege a

specific amount in controversy,” but asserts that the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000 based on the alleged injuries and

compensatory damages historically awarded in state court. Def.’s

Not. of Removal at 3. Defendant also notes that plaintiff lost

past and future wages. Defendant have failed to prove, by a

preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy meets

the jurisdictional threshold. 

////

Case 2:05-cv-01681-LKK -GGH Document 5 Filed 08/31/05 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

3

First, defendant fails to discuss the specific amount of

damages that plaintiffs may claim. “[S]peculative argument

regarding the potential value of the award is insufficient" to

establish the amount in controversy. Conrad Associates v. Hartford

Accident & Indemnity Co., 994 F.Supp. 1996, 1198 (N.D. Cal. 1998)

(citing Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992)).

Secondly, while plaintiffs seek attorney’s fees and other costs,

defendant has failed to provide adequate analysis as to why this

court should consider these claims in calculating the amount in

controversy. Finally, defendant fails to discuss or explain how

historical patterns in the awarding of compensatory damages is

relevant for the purpose of removal analysis.

"Because the ‘removal statutes are strictly construed against

removal,’ Libhardt v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064

(9th Cir. 1979), generally speaking doubts about removal must be

resolved in favor of remand." Dodd v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co.,

688 F. Supp. 564, 566 (E.D. Cal. 1988); see Matheson, 319 F.3d at

1090. Since the defendants have not adequately established the

amount in controversy in the case at bar, the court lacks subject

matter jurisdiction and must remand the case. See 28 U.S.C. §

1447(c).

////

////

////

////

////

Case 2:05-cv-01681-LKK -GGH Document 5 Filed 08/31/05 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

4

For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby ORDERS the abovecaptioned case REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of

California in and for the County of Siskiyou County.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 30, 2005

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:05-cv-01681-LKK -GGH Document 5 Filed 08/31/05 Page 4 of 4