Case Information
*1 Case 1:13-cv-00474-DAD-BAM Document 27 Filed 11/05/13 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DOROTHEA EMMONS, No. 1:13-cv474 AWI-BAM Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND ORDERING v. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., (Docs. 14, 22)
Defendant.
On June 27, 2013, this Court issued Findings and Recommendations remanding this action to the Stanislaus County Superior Court on the grounds that Defendants failed to establish the jurisdictional amount in controversy to a legal certainty. (Doc. 14). In doing so, the Court relied on Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 999 (9th Cir. 2007). On August 28, 2013, Defendants filed a notice of supplemental authority. (Doc. 21). Defendants’ notice identifies the recent Ninth Circuit decision in Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC , where the Ninth Circuit held that Lowdermilk has been “effectively overruled” by the Supreme Court’s decision in Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles , U.S. , 133 S. Ct. 1345, 185 L. Ed. 2d 439 (2013). Rodriguez , 728 F.3d 975, 981 (9th Cir. 2013) (“We hold that Standard Fire has so undermined the reasoning of our decision in Lowdermilk that the latter has been effectively overruled.”)
1 *2 Case 1:13-cv-00474-DAD-BAM Document 27 Filed 11/05/13 Page 2 of 2 The Ninth Circuit found “the proper burden of proof imposed upon a defendant to establish the amount in controversy requirement is the preponderance of the evidence standard.” Id . This standard requires a defendant to “provide evidence establishing that it is ‘more likely than not’ that the amount in controversy exceeds [the jurisdictional threshold].” Korn v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp ., 536 F. Supp. 2d 1199, 1204 (E.D. Cal. 2008).
In light of this intervening law, this Court VACATES its Findings and Recommendations issued June 27, 2013. Although the Court finds that the legal question of whether Defendants satisfy the preponderance of evidence standard has been adequately briefed, the Court will allow the parties to file additional briefing addressing application of the preponderance of evidence standard, if they wish. The Court will issue new Findings and Recommendations applying the preponderance of the evidence standard after the parties’ briefing, if any, is submitted.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations filed June 27, 2013 (Doc. 14) are vacated; 2. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Administrative Relief for Leave for Supplemental Briefing
is GRANTED (Doc. 22); 3. On or before November 20, 2013, the parties may file optional supplemental
briefing addressing whether Defendants have satisfied the preponderance of evidence standard of proof. Any supplemental briefing should not exceed five (5) pages.
IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _
Dated: November 5, 2013 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2