Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02257/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02257-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORESTE YONG, 

Plaintiff,

v.

HYATT REGENCY SACRAMENTO and

HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION, 

Defendants. 

 No. Civ. 06-2257 DFL EFB

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

AND ORDER

Plaintiff Oreste Yong filed an employment action in

Sacramento County Superior Court, alleging various claims against

defendants Hyatt Regency Sacramento and Hyatt Hotels Corporation

(collectively “Hyatt”). Hyatt filed a timely notice of removal

based upon diversity of citizenship. Yong seeks (1) remand due

to lack of diversity and an insufficient amount in controversy

and (2) attorneys fees for work related to the removal. For the

following reasons, the court denies the motion. 

I.

Yong was employed by Hyatt for over fifteen years as a

Case 2:06-cv-02257-DFL-EFB Document 10 Filed 02/09/07 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

houseman. This action arises from Hyatt’s termination of his

employment, allegedly due to poor work performance. Yong claims

that Hyatt disciplined him and eventually terminated his

employment because he is black and associated with union

activity. 

Yong advances six claims in his state action: (1)

discrimination in violation of California’s Fair Employment and

Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) violation of public policy; (3) breach

of express contract; (4) breach of covenant of good faith and

fair dealing; (5) breach of implied in fact promise not to

terminate but for good cause; and (6) intentional infliction of

emotional distress. For relief, he seeks: (1) general and

special damages; (2) incidental and consequential damages; (3)

punitive damages; (4) prejudgment interest; and (5) cost of suit

and attorneys fees. Yong does not specify a recovery amount or

make specific allegations regarding the monetary damages he has

incurred through Hyatt’s alleged misconduct. On the action’s

cover sheet, he checked the “Unlimited” box, certifying that the

amount demanded exceeded $25,000. Hyatt filed a declaration in

which its director of human resources stated that Yong earned

$1,710.80 in salary and $193.45 in benefits per month at the time

of his termination. 

Hyatt removed the present action, stating that it satisfied

28 U.S.C. § 1332's requirements for diversity of citizenship and

amount in controversy. Yong moves for remand, arguing that Hyatt

Regency Sacramento is a nondiverse party and that the amount in

Case 2:06-cv-02257-DFL-EFB Document 10 Filed 02/09/07 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

controversy does not exceed $75,000. 

II.

Hyatt, as the removing party, must demonstrate that the

court has jurisdiction over Yong’s action. See Gaus v. Miles,

Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). It satisfies this

burden as to both diversity of citizenship and amount in

controversy. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c), a corporation’s citizenship is

determined by its place of incorporation and principle place of

business. Defendant avers that Hyatt Hotels Corporation, doing

business in Sacramento as Hyatt Regency Sacramento, is

incorporated in Delaware and has its principle place of business

in Illinois. Yong, a California citizen, fails to rebut these

assertions. Hyatt, therefore, has demonstrated that all parties

are diverse. 

Pursuant to California law, Yong’s state complaint does not

demand a specific damage amount. See Singer v. State Farm Mut.

Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 375-76 (9th Cir. 1997). “Where the

complaint does not demand a dollar amount, the removing defendant

bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that

the amount in controversy exceeds [the statutory requirement].” 

Id. at 376. Although the amount in controversy is not facially

apparent, it is clear from the nature of Yong’s claims for

compensatory damages, emotional distress damages, punitive

damages, and attorneys fees that the action seeks relief well

above the amount in controversy requirement. See Kroske v. US

Case 2:06-cv-02257-DFL-EFB Document 10 Filed 02/09/07 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

Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Since the court finds that it has jurisdiction, it denies

Yong’s fee request. 

III.

For these reasons, the court DENIES the motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/8/2007

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-02257-DFL-EFB Document 10 Filed 02/09/07 Page 4 of 4