2:14-cv-05184
C.D. Cal.Sep 18, 2014Background
- Plaintiff Arthur Oganesyan, a California citizen, sued AT&T in state court for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and unfair competition (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200) after his June 2012 termination following a work-related knee injury.
- Complaint seeks lost earnings, emotional distress, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees; plaintiff did not specify a damages total.
- AT&T removed the case to federal court under diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332); plaintiff moved to remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- AT&T submitted evidence estimating back pay of $65,260 (doubling an annual salary of $32,630 to cover ~two years since termination) and argued non‑economic and punitive damages plus attorney’s fees would push the amount in controversy over $75,000.
- Plaintiff challenged AT&T’s proof of diversity, disputing the declarant’s (Jackie Begue) personal knowledge of the LLC members’ citizenship.
- The district court found the aggregated damages plausibly exceed $75,000 and that Begue’s declarations sufficiently established the LLC members’ citizenship; the court denied the motion to remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amount in controversy meets $75,000 threshold | Oganesyan did not specify damages; fees and speculative future damages should not be counted beyond what existed at removal | Aggregate of back pay (~$65,260), emotional‑distress/punitive damages, and recoverable attorney’s fees plausibly exceed $75,000 | Held: Amount in controversy satisfied by aggregating lost earnings, potential non‑economic/punitive damages, and fees |
| Inclusion of punitive/emotional‑distress damages in calculation | Such awards are speculative and not proven | Recoverable under California law for wrongful termination/FEHA; analogous verdicts support plausibility | Held: Court may consider punitive and emotional‑distress damages when plausible under controlling law |
| Inclusion of attorney’s fees | Only fees incurred by removal should count; future fees speculative | Statutory attorney’s fees (if available) may be reasonably estimated and considered in amount‑in‑controversy | Held: Court may consider reasonably estimated attorney’s fees where statute authorizes them |
| Diversity of citizenship for an LLC defendant | Begue lacks personal knowledge to establish LLC members’ citizenship; removal proof inadequate | Begue, as paralegal/assistant secretary, attested to company records identifying members and their states; AT&T provided member structure showing out‑of‑state citizenship | Held: Begue’s declarations sufficiently established complete diversity; diversity requirement satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (removal statute strictly construed; proponent bears burden)
- Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2006) (party seeking removal bears burden of establishing jurisdiction)
- Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2003) (burden on proponent where plaintiff’s complaint omits amount)
- Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2001) (punitive and emotional‑distress damages may be included if recoverable under state law)
- Simmons v. PCR Tech., 209 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (N.D. Cal.) (use of analogous verdicts and consideration of future attorney’s fees in amount‑in‑controversy)
- Tameny v. Atl. Richfield Co., 27 Cal.3d 167 (California precedent recognizing punitive damages for wrongful termination in violation of public policy)
- Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 1998) (statutory attorney’s fees can be included in amount‑in‑controversy)
- Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2006) (an LLC’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of its members)
- Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020 (11th Cir. 2004) (requirement to identify all LLC members’ citizenship for diversity jurisdiction)