Diana Pauline Avila v. National Distribution Center, LLC
5:25-cv-00667
C.D. Cal.Jun 5, 2025Background
- Diana Pauline Avila sued her former employers for alleged workplace discrimination related to her disability and age, after sustaining a disabling injury and ultimately being terminated while on medical leave.
- She filed her lawsuit in Riverside County Superior Court, seeking damages for lost wages, emotional distress, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees.
- The defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, alleging the parties were from different states and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
- Avila moved to remand the case back to state court, challenging whether the amount in controversy met the jurisdictional threshold and disputing evidence of her wage loss.
- The court considered the pleadings and evidence, including a declaration from defendant’s counsel attesting to Avila’s wage rate and projected lost wages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amount in controversy requirement met? | Defendants failed to provide sufficient wage evidence; damages speculative. | Lost wages and penalties alone exceed $75,000; declaration supports evidence. | Yes; requirement met. |
| Speculation and mitigation of damages | Calculation ignores any mitigation efforts or income after termination. | Mitigation is an affirmative defense; plaintiff offered no mitigation evidence. | Mitigation not deducted. |
| Sufficiency of employer wage declaration | Declaration from employer not enough to prove wage amount/hours. | Personnel/payroll records declaration is routinely accepted by courts. | Declaration sufficient. |
| Remand to state court appropriate? | Case should be remanded for lack of federal jurisdiction over controversy. | Federal court has jurisdiction based on diversity and amount in controversy met. | Remand denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (Ninth Circuit requires strict construction against removal jurisdiction)
- Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 888 F.3d 413 (standards for diversity jurisdiction; amount in controversy)
- Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193 (defendant cannot rely on speculation to establish jurisdiction)