Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04044/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04044-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Barbara Johnson
Plaintiff
Northwest Airlines, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARBARA JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

 V

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC,

Defendant.

 

BARBARA JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

 V

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC,

Defendant.

 

BARBARA JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

 V

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC,

Defendant.

 /

No C 07-04036 VRW

No C 07-04044 VRW

No C 07-04045 VRW

ORDER

Case 3:07-cv-04044-VRW Document 14 Filed 08/27/07 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff Barbara Johnson filed two actions in state

court, both of which make the same allegation: Northwest Airlines,

Inc failed to provide Johnson with a wheelchair when she was

changing planes on July 9, 2005, forcing Johnson to negotiate a

substantial distance between flights, thereby causing her to fall.

Johnson filed one action in Alameda superior court and

the other in San Francisco superior court. Doc #7 in 07-4036. 

Northwest removed the Alameda case and the San Francisco case to

the San Francisco Division of this court on August 6, 2007 and

August 7, 2007 respectively. Northwest also removed the Alameda

case to the Oakland Division of this court on August 7, 2007. Id. 

All this resulted in the above three separate actions by the same

plaintiff alleging the same wrong against the same defendant.

On August 20, 2007 this court found that the three

removed cases were related, and all three were assigned to the

undersigned chief judge. Doc #11 in 07-4036. For reasons that

follow and putting aside any issue associated with the litigation

mitosis going on here, the court finds that the actions were

improperly removed and remands them.

An action may be removed to federal court if it could

have been brought there originally. 28 USC § 1441. The Ninth

Circuit has made clear, however, that section 1441 is to be

construed strictly against removal jurisdiction. Libhart v Santa

Monica Dairy Co, 592 F2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir 1979). 

In order to establish diversity jurisdiction, defendant

must demonstrate that: (1) all plaintiffs are of different

citizenship from all defendants and (2) the amount in controversy,

exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the current jurisdictional

Case 3:07-cv-04044-VRW Document 14 Filed 08/27/07 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

minimum of $75,000. See 28 USC § 1332(a); see also Singer v State

Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 116 F3d 373, 376 (9th Cir 1997).

With respect to the second element, “[t]he district court

may consider whether it is ‘facially apparent’ from the complaint

that the jurisdictional amount is in controversy. If not, the

court may consider facts in the removal petition, and may ‘require

parties to submit summary-judgment-type evidence relevant to the

amount in controversy at the time of removal.’” Singer 116 F3d at

377 (quoting Allen v R & H Oil & Gas Co, 63 F3d 1326 (5th Cir

1995)). Removal, however, cannot be based simply upon conclusory

allegations. Gaus v Miles, Inc, 980 F2d 564, 567 (9th Cir 1992). 

“The removal notice must be based on reasonable inquiry into the

jurisdictional facts asserted. It is immaterial that the attorney

signing the removal notice subjectively (in ‘good faith’) believed

the facts alleged were correct if they had no objectively

reasonably basis for such belief.” William W Schwarzer, A Wallace

Tashima, James M Wagstaffe, Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial, 

§ 2:1114 (Rutter Group, 2007) (emphasis in original) (citing

Rockwell Int’l Credit Corp v United States Aircraft Ins Group 823

F2d 302, 304-05 (9th Cir 1987) (overruled on other grounds by

Partington v Gedan, 923 F2d 686 (9th Cir 1991)). 

Here, the complaint does not demand a dollar amount. 

Accordingly, the court looks to the facts alleged in the removal

petition. Defendant’s notice of removal states: “Plaintiff has

represented to Northwest that plaintiff suffered injuries to her

hip, right wrist and back in the incident alleged in the complaint,

and that the amount in controversy in this case is at least

Case 3:07-cv-04044-VRW Document 14 Filed 08/27/07 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

$145,000.” Doc #1 in 07-4036. This statement is insufficient to

establish jurisdiction. A defendant cannot rely on a plaintiff’s

unsworn statement that damages exceed $75,000. See Gaus v Miles,

Inc, 980 F2d 564 (9th Cir 1992); see also Navarro v Subaru of

America Operations Corp, 802 F Supp 191, 194 (ND Il 1992)

(defendant cannot rely solely on plaintiff’s settlement demand);

Garza v Bettcher Industries, Inc, 752 F Supp 753, 763 (ED Mich

1990) (holding that defendant’s bald recitation that “the amount in

controversy exceeds $50,000,” without the defendant identifying any

specific factual allegations or provisions in the complaint which

might support that proposition, should provoke sua sponte remand). 

Here, defendant’s notice neither overcomes the “strong presumption”

against removal jurisdiction, nor satisfies defendant’s burden of

setting forth, in the removal notice itself, the underlying facts

supporting its assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds

$75,000.

Seeking removal, defendant had the burden of establishing

the amount in controversy. As the burden has not been met, federal

jurisdiction does not exist. Accordingly, the court will REMAND

the cases to state court for further proceedings. See Albingia

Versicherungs A G v Schenker Intern Inc, 344 F3d 931, 938 (9th Cir 

2003), amended by 350 F3d 916 (9th Cir 2003) (“if it is discovered

at any time in the litigation that there is no federal

jurisdiction, a removed case must be remanded to the state court

court rather than dismissed.”) The clerk shall forthwith transmit

\\

\\

Case 3:07-cv-04044-VRW Document 14 Filed 08/27/07 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

the files in 07-04036-VRW and 07-04044-VRW to the Alameda superior

court and 07-04045-VRW to the San Francisco superior court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04044-VRW Document 14 Filed 08/27/07 Page 5 of 5