Adrian Ionel v. Lowes Home Centers, LLC, 5:23-cv-01752

Plaintiff Adriana Ionel filed suit in state court against Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC and others; defendant removed the action to federal court invoking diversity jurisdiction.
Defendant’s Notice of Removal alleges diversity jurisdiction but, in the court’s view, fails to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
The court reviewed the Notice and, noting federal courts’ limited jurisdiction and duty to inquire sua sponte, found the removal deficient as to the amount-in-controversy showing.
The court ordered the parties to SHOW CAUSE in writing within 14 days why the case should not be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and encouraged submission of evidence or judicially noticeable facts; responses limited to 10 pages.
The order warns that Defendant, as the party asserting federal jurisdiction, must timely and adequately respond or the case will be remanded without further notice.
The court continued the Scheduling Conference to December 1, 2023 and instructed no updated Joint Rule 26(f) report was needed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000	Plaintiff challenges/does not concede the amount alleged by defendant	Defendant alleges the jurisdictional amount but the Notice does not prove it by a preponderance	Court finds Notice insufficient to establish amount-in-controversy and orders show-cause and evidentiary submission
Who bears the burden and standard to demonstrate jurisdiction on removal	Plaintiff may contest removal and require proof	Defendant bears burden to plausibly allege amount in notice and, if contested, to prove it by a preponderance	Court applies Dart and Leite: defendant must submit proof (facial and factual sufficiency); failure will result in remand

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts have limited jurisdiction)
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006) (courts presumed to lack jurisdiction absent affirmative showing)
Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (1999) (courts must examine jurisdiction sua sponte)
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2014) (removal notice must plausibly allege amount in controversy; if contested, parties submit proof)
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (any doubt as to right of removal requires remand)
Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2014) (two-pronged inquiry into facial and factual sufficiency of removal showing)