Rocio Monarrez v. Wal Mart Associates, Inc.
2:19-cv-00411
C.D. Cal.Apr 3, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Rocio Monarrez filed a state-court complaint alleging disability-discrimination claims against Wal‑Mart Associates, Inc., seeking lost wages, emotional distress, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.
- Defendant removed the action to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and alleging the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
- Defendant calculated back pay to date at $6,704.50 and argued other damages (future lost wages, emotional distress, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees) push the amount over $75,000.
- Plaintiff contested the sufficiency of the removal showing; the court reviewed whether the defendant met the burden to establish the jurisdictional amount.
- The court found defendant's assertions speculative and insufficiently supported and remanded the case to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 | Complaint does not plead amount; does not concede federal jurisdiction | Back pay ($6,704.50) plus emotional distress, punitive damages, future wages, and attorneys' fees exceed $75,000 | Remand: defendant failed to prove amount in controversy meets $75,000 threshold |
| Standard and burden for removal amount showing | Plaintiff implicitly disputes defendant's allegation | Defendant must plausibly allege amount in notice; if contested must prove by preponderance | Court applies Dart and Guas: defendant did not satisfy burden |
| Whether prospective attorneys' fees may be included | Fees speculative and client/counsel controlled | Fees should be counted toward amount in controversy | Court declines to include prospective attorneys' fees as speculative |
| Whether punitive and emotional-distress damages can bridge the gap | Such damages unproven and speculative here | These damages justify reaching $75,000 | Court finds no evidence supporting large punitive/emotional-distress awards; speculative and insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Lowdermilk v. United States Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 479 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2007) (removing defendant bears burden to show amount in controversy)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (2014) (notice of removal need only plausibly allege amount in controversy; if contested defendant must prove by preponderance)
- Guas v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (when amount in controversy is contested, defendant must establish requirement by preponderance of the evidence)