Reina Torres v. McGriff Insurance Services, LLC
8:25-cv-01111
| C.D. Cal. | May 28, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Reina Torres worked for Defendant McGriff Insurance Services, LLC, was promoted, became pregnant, and requested workplace accommodations.
- Plaintiff alleged negative workplace treatment after disclosing her pregnancy and seeking accommodations due to high-risk pregnancy and postpartum issues.
- Plaintiff was terminated one day after returning from disability leave in August 2024.
- The complaint asserts violations of California's FEHA, the Labor Code, wrongful termination, and related claims.
- Plaintiff filed suit in Orange County Superior Court; Defendant removed to federal court on diversity grounds, asserting the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
- The court sua sponte considered whether federal subject matter jurisdiction was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amount in Controversy Requirement | Not expressly alleged over $75,000 | Total lost wages, emotional distress, etc. >$75K | Not met; only non-speculative losses |
| Scope of Lost Wages | Only up to date of removal is relevant | Include future lost wages up to trial | Only up to date of removal counts |
| Inclusion of Speculative Damages | Do not count speculative categories | Include punitive, emotional, attorney’s fees | Exclude speculative amounts |
| Federal Diversity Jurisdiction | Jurisdiction not satisfied | Jurisdiction proper under amount in controversy | Not satisfied; case remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389 (9th Cir. 1988) (burden is on removing party to establish federal jurisdiction and removal statutes are strictly construed)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005) (complete diversity required for federal subject matter jurisdiction)
- Richmond v. Allstate Ins. Co., 897 F. Supp. 447 (S.D. Cal. 1995) (defendant must set forth underlying facts supporting amount in controversy)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (ambiguities in removal are resolved against removal; burden on defendant)
- Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373 (9th Cir. 1997) (defendant may use summary judgment-type evidence to establish jurisdiction)