Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00691/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00691-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
Defendant
Daniel Pancoast
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

DANIEL PANCOAST,

NO. CIV. S-06-691 LKK/PAN

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

THE HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.,

Defendant.

 /

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

The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 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

this burden. 

Case 2:06-cv-00691-LKK -PAN Document 5 Filed 04/20/06 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

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, Daniel Pancoast, filed a complaint on December 28,

2005 in Placer County Superior Court alleging four causes of action

relating to the termination of his employment with Home Depot. 

Nowhere in the complaint does plaintiff assign a value to the

relief he seeks. "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). 

Defendant concedes that the complaint “did not include a

statement of damages . . . .” Def.’s Ntc. of Removal at 2:5. 

Defendant also concedes that plaintiff’s answer to defendant’s

interrogatory 210.2 states that plaintiff only seeks $553.60 per

week in lost income. See Id. at 2:17. Defendant argues that this

response to the interrogatory, combined with emotional distress

damages, medical costs, attorneys fees and punitive damages

establishes that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Id.

at 2:17. Defendant has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the

evidence, that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional

Case 2:06-cv-00691-LKK -PAN Document 5 Filed 04/20/06 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

threshold. 

First, defendant fails to discuss the specific amount of

damages that plaintiff 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. 1196, 1198 (N.D. Cal. 1998)

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

case at bar, defendant speculates as to the potential value of the

awards for medical care costs, attorneys fees and emotional

distress. 

Second, while it is true that plaintiff seeks damages for

medical expenses, lost wages, attorneys fees and other costs,

defendant has failed to provide adequate analysis as to why this

court should consider these damages in calculating the amount in

controversy. 

"Because the ‘removal statutes are strictly construed against

removal,’ [...] 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)(citing Libhardt v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592

F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979)). Since the 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).

////

////

////

Case 2:06-cv-00691-LKK -PAN Document 5 Filed 04/20/06 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 Placer County.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 19, 2006

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:06-cv-00691-LKK -PAN Document 5 Filed 04/20/06 Page 4 of 4