Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00062/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00062-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Russell K. Hensley
Plaintiff
Lazer Spot, Inc.
Defendant

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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUSSELL K. HENSLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAZER SPOT, INC. and DOES 1-

100, inclusive,

Defendant.

No. 2:20-cv-00062-JAM-CKD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO REMAND

After Lazer Spot, Inc.’s former employee, Russell Hensley, 

filed suit in Yolo County Superior Court, the corporation removed 

this case to federal court. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. Lazer 

Spot invoked the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, arguing the 

amount in controversy exceeded the statutory threshold and that 

the two parties—a California citizen and a Georgia corporation—

are completely diverse. Notice of Removal at 2-6. In response, 

Hensley filed a motion to remand.1 ECF No. 8. He contends the 

Court should not rely upon the amount in controversy listed in 

his complaint because it mistakenly alleges that Hensley seeks up 

1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 

scheduled for April 7, 2020.

Case 2:20-cv-00062-JAM-CKD Document 14 Filed 04/21/20 Page 1 of 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

2

to $4,999,999.99 in monetary damages. Mot. at 3 (citing Guez 

Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 8-1). The actual amount in controversy, 

Hensley argues, is $52,213.15, exclusive of attorney fees. Id.; 

Reply at 1-2, ECF No. 12.

When a complaint “alleges on its face an amount in 

controversy sufficient to meet the federal jurisdictional 

threshold, [the amount in controversy] requirement is 

presumptively satisfied unless it appears to a ‘legal certainty’ 

that a plaintiff cannot actually recover that amount.” 

Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 

2007). As explained below, Hensley failed to either satisfy the 

legal certainty standard or provide compelling reasons for why 

that standard should not apply. For these reasons, the Court

denies his motion to remand. 

I. BACKGROUND

From 2016 through 2019, Hensley worked for Lazer Spot at its 

trucking yard management center in Yolo County, CA. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 

11, ECF No. 1-1. He alleges that Spot failed to timely 

compensate him for (1) involuntarily-forfeited rest periods; 

(2) involuntarily-forfeited meal periods; (3) overtime; and 

(4) off-the clock work. Compl. ¶¶ 26-39, 47-64. Hensley argues 

Lazer Spot also failed to provide him with accurate pay stubs. 

Compl. ¶¶ 40-46. He seeks monetary and injunctive relief for 

these violations of California law. See Compl. ¶¶ 26-64.

///

///

///

Case 2:20-cv-00062-JAM-CKD Document 14 Filed 04/21/20 Page 2 of 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

3

II. OPINION

A. Legal Standard

A defendant may generally remove an action filed in state 

court if the federal district courts have original jurisdiction

over the claims. Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 888 F.3d 413, 

414 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). Defendants 

seeking to remove a case based on a federal court’s diversity 

jurisdiction must show that, at the time of removal, the parties 

are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds 

$75,000, exclusive of interests and costs. Matheson v. 

Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 

2003) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)). When it is unclear from 

the face of the complaint filed in state court whether the 

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, “the removing defendant 

bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the 

evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds the 

jurisdictional threshold.” Chavez, 888 F.3d at 416. But when 

the complaint “alleges on its face an amount in controversy 

sufficient to meet the federal jurisdictional threshold, such 

requirement is presumptively satisfied unless it appears to a 

‘legal certainty’ that the plaintiff cannot actually meet that 

amount.” Guglielmino, 506 F.3d at 699. 

B. Analysis

The face of Hensley’s complaint states that the amount in 

controversy is $4,999,999.99. See Infanzon v. Allstate Insur. 

Co., No. CV 19-06483-JAK-SKx, 2019 WL 5847833, at *4 (C.D. Cal. 

Nov. 6, 2019) (“Where the pleadings seek ‘up to’ an amount or set 

a cap ‘not to exceed’ a certain figure, ‘this suffices as a 

Case 2:20-cv-00062-JAM-CKD Document 14 Filed 04/21/20 Page 3 of 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

4

statement of the amount in controversy upon which Defendants can 

rely in properly removing the action to federal court.”). 

Hensley nonetheless argues this Court lacks diversity 

jurisdiction because the actual amount in controversy—$52,213.15—

falls short of the jurisdictional minimum. Mot. at 2-3. Hensley 

urges the Court to consider this amount, rather than the 

$4,999,999.99 mistakenly claimed in the complaint, to conduct its 

jurisdictional analysis. Id. Albeit attractive in its 

simplicity, the Court cannot adopt this approach. 

Lazer Spot’s opposition correctly surveys much of the incircuit authority on this issue. Opp’n 1-3. When, following 

removal, a plaintiff argues the amount in controversy differs 

from the amount alleged in his complaint, he must show to a 

“legal certainty” that he could not recover more than $75,000. 

Guglielmino, 506 F.3d at 699. A plaintiff can only meet this 

high bar by pointing to “a rule of law or limitation of damages 

[that] would make it virtually impossible for [him] to meet the 

amount-in-controversy requirement.’” Amezquita v. JC Penney 

Corp., Inc., No. 1:18-cv-0177-AWI-SAB, 2018 WL 1181675, at *2 

(quoting Pachinger v. MGM Grand Hotel-Las Vegas, Inc., 802 F.2d 

362, 364 (9th Cir. 1986). As Lazer Spot argues, the Central 

District of California has uniformly rejected the notion that a 

mistake or typographical error in the complaint frees plaintiffs 

from satisfying the legal certainty standard. Opp’n at 2; Perez

v. Hermetic Seal Corp., No. CV 16-05211-BRO-FFMx, 2016 WL 

5477990, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 2016); Plata v. Target Corp., No. CV 

16-5190-PSG-MRWx, 2016 WL 6237798, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 

2016); Gillings v. Time Warner Cable LLC, No. CV 10-5565-AG-RNBx, 

Case 2:20-cv-00062-JAM-CKD Document 14 Filed 04/21/20 Page 4 of 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

5

2011 WL 13273074, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2011). Hensley fails 

to identify any cases to the contrary. Nor does he provide any 

compelling reasons why the Court should depart from the Central 

District’s approach. 

Adopting the Central District’s approach for this case, the 

Court finds Hensley bears the burden of proving the amount in 

controversy—as a matter of law—cannot exceed $75,000.00. Hensley 

failed to make this showing. He did not, in either his 3-page 

motion or 2-page reply brief, identify a rule of law or 

limitation of damages that would make it “virtually impossible” 

for more than $75,000.00 to be at issue here. See Amezquita, No. 

2018 WL 1181675, at *2. Accordingly, the $4,999,999.99 prayer 

for relief in Hensley’s operative complaint satisfies the amountin-controversy requirement. Because the parties also satisfy 

section 1332’s complete diversity requirement, the Court finds it 

has diversity jurisdiction over this suit. Hensley’s motion to 

remand is therefore DENIED. 

III. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s motion to remand.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2020

Case 2:20-cv-00062-JAM-CKD Document 14 Filed 04/21/20 Page 5 of 5