Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Alba Corral v. Watson Laboratories

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 11, 2012

ALBA CORRAL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WATSON LABORATORIES, INC AND DOES 1--25, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Otis D. Wright, II United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND [18]

On October 26, 20012, Plaintiff Alba Corral moved to remand this action, arguing "Defendant Watson [] failed to prove minimal diversity and . . . that the amount in controversy in this action exceeds $5,000,000 as required by CAFA." (Mot. at 2.) In opposition, Watson explains that, although it was deemed a California citizen by various courts in the past, it is now in fact a citizen of both Nevada and New Jersey only. See Strotek v. Air Transport Ass'n of Am., 300 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 2002) (for purposes of verifying its jurisdictional authority, a district court should look to the diversity of the parties at the time of the filing of the complaint and at the time of the removal of the action).

In addition, Watson argues that "Plaintiff's assertion that Watson's amount in controversy calculations are flawed because they are based on the number of 'putative class members,' as opposed to the number of 'qualifying shifts' worked, is baseless." (Opp'n at 5 (citing Mot. at 6-7).)

Rather than delve into the specifics of Plaintiff's objections, the Court merely notes that, contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, Defendant does not in fact bear the "burden of proving the amount in controversy." (Mot. at 5 (emphasis added)). Rather, Defendant need merely establish it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy will exceed the jurisdictional amount. The Court is satisfied that Defendant has met that burden. Indeed, it would appear that Plaintiff herself is satisfied by Defendant's argument, opting not to file a Reply to try and overcome Defendant's position. Plaintiff's motion to remand [18] is therefore DENIED.

SO ORDERED

20121211

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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