Ortiz v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, 3:19-cv-01293

Plaintiff Marco Ortiz filed a state-court personal-injury complaint against Costco Wholesale Corporation (slip-and-fall type claim).
Defendant removed the action to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction: complete diversity and amount in controversy over $75,000.
Plaintiff had separately filed a Statement of Damages claiming total damages in excess of $620,091.40 (including $300,000 each for past and future pain and suffering and $20,091.40 in past medical expenses).
The complaint itself did not specify a damages amount; only the Statement of Damages quantified injuries.
The Court considered sua sponte whether federal subject-matter jurisdiction existed because removal statutes are strictly construed and the removing party bears the burden to prove jurisdiction.
The Court found Defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 and remanded the case to state court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal diversity jurisdiction exists based on amount in controversy	The complaint contains no amount; the separate Statement of Damages is not part of the complaint and does not prove amount	The Statement of Damages shows claimed damages exceed $75,000 (>$620,091.40), so amount in controversy satisfied	Remand: Defendant failed to meet preponderance-of-evidence burden; jurisdiction not established
Whether a plaintiff's statement of damages alone can establish amount in controversy	Statement is at most a claim estimate and must be supported by facts; may be an optimistic prediction	Statement alone is sufficient to show threshold	Court: Plaintiff's estimate without factual support does not establish amount in controversy for removal; defendant must supply evidence

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts have limited jurisdiction and statutes authorize removal)
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006) (presumption against federal jurisdiction unless record affirmatively shows otherwise)
Renne v. Geary, 501 U.S. 312 (1991) (same presumption regarding federal jurisdiction)
Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (2002) (removal is statutory and suits remain in state court unless Congress authorizes removal)
Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2003) (removing party must prove amount in controversy by a preponderance when not apparent on face of complaint)
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (removal statute strictly construed against removal)
Kelton Arms Condominium Owners Ass'n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2003) (court must remand sua sponte if it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction)
Cohn v. PetSmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2002) (plaintiff's damage estimate may be relevant but is not dispositive if it's a speculative or optimistic prediction)
Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190 (9th Cir. 1988) (burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests with the party invoking removal)