Valerie Maerowitz v. Club Med Sales, Inc., 2:25-cv-03581

Valerie Maerowitz filed a lawsuit in the Central District of California against Club Med Sales, Inc. and other defendants.
Defendants removed the case to federal court based on alleged diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
The court, upon review of the Notice of Removal, questioned whether the amount in controversy meets the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold required for federal diversity jurisdiction.
The court ordered both parties to show cause why the case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The order emphasizes that federal jurisdiction is limited and the removing party must establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.
Defendants are specifically tasked with demonstrating the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 through both facial and factual sufficiency.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal jurisdiction exists	Jurisdiction lacking: amount unclear	Jurisdiction exists; meets threshold	Court questions sufficiency, seeks proof
Sufficiency of amount in controversy allegations	Amount not proven by defendants	Allegations in Notice sufficient	Allegations not shown by preponderance
Requirement to prove jurisdictional amount	Defendants must show evidence	Jurisdiction presumed by removal	Proof by preponderance of evidence needed
Remedy if jurisdiction is not established	Action should be remanded	Removal should stand	Potential remand if insufficient showing

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts have limited jurisdiction, requiring affirmative authority)
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006) (presumption against federal jurisdiction unless expressly shown)
Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (1999) (federal courts must ensure jurisdiction before ruling on merits)
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (any doubt about removal justifies remand)