Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00887/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00887-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lifestyles Senior Housing Managers
Defendant
Carol Miller
Plaintiff
Oak Knoll Senior Living, LLC
Defendant
Michael Ruggles
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAROL MILLER,

NO. CIV. S-05-887 LKK/DAD

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

LIFESTYLES SENIOR HOUSING

MANAGERS dba OAK KNOLL

SENIOR LIVING, LLC; and

MICHAEL RUGGLES,

Defendants.

 /

This matter is before the court on defendant Lifestyles Senior

Housing Manager’s (“defendant”) notice of removal predicated upon

this 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); Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d

1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 1979). In issues pertaining to removal, the

defendant bears the burden of establishing this court’s

Case 2:05-cv-00887-LKK -DAD Document 9 Filed 06/13/05 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

jurisdiction. Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195

(9th Cir. 1988). Below, I explain why defendant has failed to meet

this burden. 

Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of

citizenship among the parties, as well as a minimum amount in

controversy of more than $75,000. See id. While it appears that

diversity of citizenship may be satisfied, defendant has not met

its burden in demonstrating that the amount in controversy exceeds

$75,000. Where the jurisdictional amount cannot be ascertained

from the allegations of the complaint, the burden is on the

defendant to prove the minimum jurisdictional amount by a

preponderance of the evidence. See Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins.

Co., 95 F.3d 856, 860 (9th Cir. 1996).

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants alleging fraudulent

inducement/intentional misrepresentation, negligent

misrepresentation, violation of California Labor Code § 1102.5, and

wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Plaintiff does

not assign any numerical value to damages she is seeking in her

prayer for relief. She alleges only that her salary was $62,500

per year for the first 90 days of employment and was to be

increased to $65,000 plus an annual bonus of $12,000 after

satisfactory performance during the 90 day period. Complaint at

¶¶ 12-13. Defendant’s removal petition completely fails to address

the amount in controversy requirement. At best, defendant is

speculating that the damages sought meets the statutory

requirement. Defendant provides no explanation or evidence in

Case 2:05-cv-00887-LKK -DAD Document 9 Filed 06/13/05 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

support of this speculation. “A speculative argument regarding the

potential value of the award is insufficient.” Conrad Assoc. v.

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 994 F.Supp. 1996, 1198 (N.D.

Cal. 1998)(citing Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir.

1992)). “Because the ‘removal statutes are strictly construed

against removal,’ Libhart, 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 also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Because

defendant has not established the requisite amount in controversy

in the instant case, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction

and must remand the case. Id. 

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 Butte. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 13, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:05-cv-00887-LKK -DAD Document 9 Filed 06/13/05 Page 3 of 3