United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is plaintiff Angelina Carson's motion to
remand to state court. (ECF No. 6). Defendant Target
Corporation filed a response (ECF No. 8), to which plaintiff
replied (ECF No. 9).
instant action involves a slip-and-fall incident at
defendant's store, from which plaintiff incurred medical
expenses and loss of wages. In particular, plaintiff alleges
she suffered a right ankle/fibula fracture.
originally filed the complaint in state court on February 7,
2017. (ECF No. 1 at 5). The complaint alleges three claims
for relief: (1) negligence; (2) negligence per se;
and (3) negligent hiring, training, retention, and
supervision. (ECF No. 1 at 5-9). Plaintiff seeks damages in
excess of $15, 000.00. (ECF No. 1 at 9).
removed the action to federal court on March 6, 2017,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (ECF No. 1).
instant motion, plaintiff moves to remand the action to state
court. (ECF No. 6).
to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), “any civil action brought
in a State court of which the district courts of the United
States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the
defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the
United States for the district and division embracing the
place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. §
United States district court to have diversity jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the parties must be completely
diverse and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,
000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. See 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a); Matheson v. Progressive Specialty
Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2003). A removing
defendant has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that the jurisdictional amount is met. See
Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398,
403-04 (9th Cir. 1996).
a defendant has thirty (30) days upon notice of removability
to remove a case to federal court. Durham v. Lockheed
Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1250 (9th Cir. 2006)
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)). Defendants are not
charged with notice of removability “until they've
received a paper that gives them enough information to
remove.” Id. at 1251.
“the ‘thirty day time period [for removal] . . .
starts to run from defendant's receipt of the initial
pleading only when that pleading affirmatively reveals on its
face' the facts necessary for federal court
jurisdiction.” Id. at 1250 (quoting Harris
v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 425 F.3d 689, 690-91
(9th Cir. 2005) (alterations in original)). “Otherwise,
the thirty-day clock doesn't begin ticking until a
defendant receives ‘a copy of an amended pleading,
motion, order or other paper' from which it can determine
that the case is removable. Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C.
plaintiff may challenge removal by timely filing a motion to
remand. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Remand to state court is
proper if the district court lacks jurisdiction. Id.
On a motion to remand, the removing defendant faces a strong
presumption against removal, and bears the burden of
establishing that removal is proper. Sanchez v.
Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 403-04 (9th Cir.
1996); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566-67
(9th Cir. 1992). . . . . . . . . .
statement of removal, defendant states that plaintiff has
alleged past medical expenses of approximately $25, 500, wage
loss of approximately $8, 500, and total ...