Lucio Lemus v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc., 2:21-cv-00146

Plaintiff Lucio Lemus filed a putative class action removed to federal court by Owens‑Brockway Glass Container.
Removal invoked CAFA; defendant bears the burden to prove the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.
The complaint did not plead an amount in controversy (and may affirmatively allege it does not exceed $5 million), triggering the defendant’s evidentiary burden under CAFA.
The Court reviewed the Notice of Removal and found the Notice did not, by a preponderance of the evidence, demonstrate the $5 million CAFA threshold.
The Court ordered the parties to show cause in writing within 14 days (responses limited to 10 pages) why the case should not be remanded for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction and invited evidentiary submissions.
The Court warned that defendant’s failure to timely respond will result in remand without further warning; the inquiry will test both facial and factual sufficiency of the removal showing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CAFA jurisdiction exists because amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000	Lemus contends the complaint does not meet CAFA threshold (amount not pleaded or is below $5M)	Owens‑Brockway contends removal allegations suffice to show amount in controversy > $5M	Court: Removal notice fails to demonstrate by preponderance that amount exceeds $5M; ordered show cause and invited evidence
Whether court should remand if defendant does not meet burden or fails to respond	Lemus seeks remand if defendant cannot prove jurisdictional amount	Owens‑Brockway must produce evidence and reasonable assumptions to meet CAFA burden or risk remand	Court: If defendant fails to timely meet burden or respond, case will be remanded without further warning

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and must affirmatively find jurisdiction)
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2006) (courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction unless record shows otherwise)
Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1999) (courts must examine jurisdiction sua sponte before reaching merits)
Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) (removing defendant bears burden to establish federal jurisdiction, including amount in controversy)
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (procedural standard for challenging removal pleadings)
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2014) (notice of removal must include a plausible allegation of the amount in controversy; no antiremoval presumption under CAFA)
Ibarra v. Manheim Invs. Inc., 775 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2015) (defendant must submit evidence and reasonable assumptions when complaint does not allege CAFA amount)
Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2014) (courts should assess both facial and factual sufficiency of removal jurisdictional showing)