Lucio Lemus v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc.
2:21-cv-00146
C.D. Cal.Jul 19, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Lucio Lemus sued Owens‑Brockway Glass Container in state court; defendant removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).
- CAFA jurisdiction requires (1) amount in controversy > $5,000,000, (2) minimal diversity, and (3) class size >100 members.
- The removing defendant bears the burden to establish federal jurisdiction, including the amount in controversy; CAFA removals do not carry an antiremoval presumption.
- The Court reviewed the Notice of Removal and determined the Notice did not, by a preponderance of the evidence, demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.
- The Court ordered the parties to show cause in writing within 14 days (responses limited to 10 pages) why the action should not be remanded, inviting submission of evidence or judicially noticeable facts and directing consideration of both facial and factual sufficiency.
- The Court warned that defendant’s failure to timely respond will result in remand without further warning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CAFA jurisdiction exists because amount in controversy exceeds $5M | Lemus contends the record/complaint does not establish > $5M (or omits amount) so federal jurisdiction is lacking | Owens‑Brockway asserts the Notice plausibly alleged the requisite amount to remove under CAFA | Court: Notice did not prove by a preponderance that amount in controversy > $5M; jurisdiction not established on present record; order to show cause issued |
| Burden and proof standard for CAFA removals when amount is contested | Lemus relies on requirement that defendant must prove jurisdictional amount when complaint omits or denies > $5M | Owens‑Brockway relies on Dart for a ‘‘plausible allegation’’ standard for removal notices | Court: Under Dart and Ibarra, when amount is contested the removing defendant must put forward evidence and persuade the court by a preponderance that > $5M is in controversy |
| Sufficiency of the Notice of Removal | Lemus argues the Notice is facially and factually insufficient to meet the jurisdictional burden | Owens‑Brockway argues the Notice adequately alleges federal jurisdiction under CAFA | Court: The Notice, as filed, fails to demonstrate the amount in controversy by a preponderance; further evidence ordered |
| Remedy for failure to establish jurisdiction or fail to respond | Lemus requests remand if defendant cannot prove jurisdiction | Owens‑Brockway seeks opportunity to supplement the record to sustain removal | Court: Ordered show‑cause briefing; warned that defendant’s failure to timely respond will result in remand without further warning |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (federal courts have only limited, statutory jurisdiction)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2006) (courts presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the record affirmatively shows otherwise)
- Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1999) (federal courts must examine jurisdiction sua sponte before addressing the merits)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2014) (removal notice must contain a plausible allegation of the amount in controversy; contested amounts require proof)
- Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) (removing defendant bears burden to establish federal jurisdiction)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of proof)
- Ibarra v. Manheim Invs. Inc., 775 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2015) (defendant must present evidence showing > $5M when complaint omits or denies amount in controversy)
- Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2014) (CAFA jurisdictional inquiries include both facial and factual sufficiency)