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.

Carson v. Target Corp.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 19, 2017

ANGELINA CARSON, Plaintiff(s),
v.
TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant(s).

          ORDER

         Presently 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).

         I. Facts

         The 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.

         Plaintiff 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).

         Defendant removed the action to federal court on March 6, 2017, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (ECF No. 1).

         In the instant motion, plaintiff moves to remand the action to state court. (ECF No. 6).

         II. Legal Standard

         Pursuant 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. § 1441(a).

         For a 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).

         Procedurally, 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.

         Specifically, “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. § 1446(b)(3)).

         A 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). . . . . . . . . .

         III. Discussion

         In the statement of removal, defendant states that plaintiff has alleged past medical expenses of approximately $25, 500, wage loss of approximately $8, 500, and total ...


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.