Pauline Marquez v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, 2:23-cv-07846

Plaintiff Pauline Marquez sued Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC in state court; defendants removed to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction.
Federal subject-matter jurisdiction depends on diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.
The court reviewed the Notice of Removal and found the Notice does not, on its face and as supported, demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
The court issued an Order to Show Cause (Sept. 21, 2023) directing the parties, in writing within 10 days, to explain why the action should not be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Parties are encouraged to submit evidence and/or judicially noticeable facts; responses are limited to 10 pages.
The court warned that, as the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Defendant’s failure to timely and adequately respond will result in remand without further notice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000	Marquez contests defendant’s allegation that the amount exceeds $75,000	Removal notice alleges amount exceeds threshold but provides insufficient proof	Court: Notice does not demonstrate by a preponderance that amount exceeds $75,000; parties ordered to show cause within 10 days
Standard and burden for proving amount in controversy on removal	Plaintiff asks remand unless defendant proves threshold	Defendant must plausibly allege amount in notice and, if contested, submit proof by a preponderance	Court applies Dart preponderance standard and Leite two-pronged (facial and factual) inquiry; invites evidence; warns remand if defendant fails to respond

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts have limited, statutory jurisdiction)
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006) (courts presumed to lack jurisdiction absent affirmative record showing)
Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (1999) (federal courts must examine jurisdiction sua sponte)
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2014) (removing party must plausibly allege amount; if contested, parties submit proof and defendant must show amount by preponderance)
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (any doubt as to right of removal requires remand)
Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2014) (removal inquiry includes both facial and factual sufficiency of amount-in-controversy showing)