Danielle McGowan v. Dollar Tree, Inc., 5:17-cv-00702

Plaintiff Danielle McGowan sued Dollar Tree, Inc. and Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. in San Bernardino County Superior Court.
Defendants removed the action to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441.
The state-court complaint did not allege a specific dollar amount in damages.
Defendants estimated damages in the removal notice by aggregating lost wages, lost benefits, emotional distress, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees to exceed the $75,000 threshold.
The district court reviewed the notice and complaint and found defendants failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal diversity jurisdiction exists	McGowan implicitly: state claim only; complaint does not allege > $75,000	Removal invokes diversity; aggregated damages exceed $75,000	No diversity jurisdiction; remand required
Whether lost wages projected to a future trial date may be included	Lost wages as alleged through removal date only	May project back and front pay to trial for amount in controversy	Court rejects projection beyond date of removal; measure at removal date
Whether speculative emotional distress damages may be counted	Emotional distress claimed but no amount pled	Emotional distress should be aggregated to reach threshold	Speculative without supporting evidence; cannot be relied on
Whether punitive damages and attorneys’ fees may be included	Plaintiff sought punitive and fees in prayer but no amounts pled	Punitive damages and attorneys’ fees can be included if shown probable and supported	Court disallows speculative punitive awards and future attorneys’ fees absent evidence of amounts incurred by removal date

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (2002) (removal is statutory and to be strictly construed)
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (court must ensure subject-matter jurisdiction exists)
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (strong presumption against removal; burden on removing defendant)
Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) (burden of proof on removal rests with defendant)
Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2003) (when complaint does not facially show > $75,000, removing party must prove amount in controversy)
Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2004) (defendant must prove amount in controversy by preponderance)
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (only cases that could have been filed in federal court may be removed)
Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2001) (punitive damages may be included in amount-in-controversy calculation)
Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2007) (attorneys’ fees authorized by statute may be included in amount in controversy)