Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Johanneck v. Target Stores Inc.

United States District Court, District of Nevada

December 9, 2014

STEPHANIE JOHANNECK, Plaintiffs,
v.
TARGET STORES, INC., Defendants.

ORDER

Presently before the court is plaintiff Shannon Johanneck’s (hereinafter “plaintiff”) motion for remand. (Doc. # 9). Target Corporation (hereinafter “defendant” / “Target”) filed a response. (Doc. # 13). To date, plaintiff has not filed a reply and the deadline to reply has passed.

I. Background

This is a slip and fall case. Plaintiff was injured in a Target store when she slipped on an unknown slippery substance and fell. Plaintiff then brought the instant action alleging that Target was negligent. Plaintiff argues that Target had notice that the substance was on the floor and left it unattended or failed to notice plaintiff, causing her to fall.

Plaintiff filed her complaint in the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada. Based on the injuries plaintiff claimed, defendant timely removed the case to this court. Defendant removed the case asserting that diversity of citizenship exists and the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000. However, plaintiff argues that the amount in controversy is not met and the case should be remanded to state court. Accordingly, plaintiff filed the instant motion. . . .

II. Legal Standard

A complaint filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the action had it originally been brought in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). This court has original jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), over suits between citizens of different states for which the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

In deciding whether removal is proper, courts strictly construe the removal statute against finding jurisdiction. Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009); see also California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004). The burden of proof for removal is on the defendant. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 (9th Cir. 1990)).

Finally, “when the plaintiff fails to plead a specific amount of damages, the defendant seeking removal must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy requirement has been met.” Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank National Ass’n., 479 F.3d 994, 998 (9th Cir. 2007). “Where doubt regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins., Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566.

III. Discussion

A. Motion to remand

To satisfy jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), there must be complete diversity between the parties. Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that she is a resident of Nevada. Target is a Minnesota corporation which maintains its principal place of business in Minnesota. Thus, the diversity requirement is satisfied.

Next, in order for the district court to exercise jurisdiction, the amount in controversy must exceed $75, 000. In the complaint, plaintiff requests “general and specific damages in excess of $10, 000.00.” (Doc. # 1). Since plaintiff did not plead a specific amount, “defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy requirement has been met.” Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998 (9th Cir. 2007).

Plaintiff represents in her motion that she has incurred $16, 434.60 in medical expenses. (Doc. # 9). Defendant argues that plaintiff failed to allege that she will not incur future medical expenses. (Doc. # 13). However, plaintiff does not have the burden of proving her damages will not meet $75, 000. It is defendant’s burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the damages will exceed $75, 000.

To prove this, defendant has provided the court with case law showing the amount of damages other plaintiffs have been awarded for lumbar vertebra fractures. Id. However, defendant failed to prove that the damages in the instant case will be consistent with that case law. Defendant was willing to stipulate to remand if plaintiff agreed not to seek damages exceeding $75, 000. Defendant argues ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.