Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02272/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02272-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ben Bridge Jeweler, Inc.
Defendant
Eric Lee
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

ERIC LEE, on behalf of 

himself and all others

similarly situated,

NO. CIV. S-05-2272 LKK/DAD

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

BEN BRIDGE JEWELER, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

This matter is before the court on the petition of defendant,

Ben Bridge Jeweler, 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, 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 this burden. 

Case 2:05-cv-02272-LKK -DAD Document 8 Filed 11/17/05 Page 1 of 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

2

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. 

Plaintiff, Eric Lee, on behalf of himself and all others

similarly situated, filed a complaint on September 9, 2005 in

Sacramento Superior Court alleging that defendant violated

Cal. Civ. Code § 1747.08. This provision prohibits merchants from

asking for a customer’s address and phone number under certain

circumstances. On page seven of the complaint, plaintiff submits

that the “amount in controversy does not exceed $74.999.99.”

Compl. at 7:2. Defendant, in its notice of removal, states that

the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, but fails to explain

how that number was derived. See Def. Ntc. of Removal at 2:23. 

"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);

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

Not only does the complaint state that the amount in

controversy does not exceed $74,999.99, but defendant fails to

provide any additional evidence or explanations for why the amount

in controversy would be more than the sum specified in the

Case 2:05-cv-02272-LKK -DAD Document 8 Filed 11/17/05 Page 2 of 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

3

complaint. Therefore, defendant has failed to prove, by a

preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy meets

the jurisdictional threshold. 

"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 defendant has 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).

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 Sacramento.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 14, 2005

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:05-cv-02272-LKK -DAD Document 8 Filed 11/17/05 Page 3 of 3