United States District Court, C.D. California
Mayra Quinones, et al.
Atria Management Company, LLC, et al.
PRESENT: HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
(IN CHAMBERS): ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
REMAND TO STATE COURT [filed 6/14/2019; Docket No.
14, 2019, Plaintiff Mayra Quinones (“Plaintiff”)
filed a Motion to Remand to State Court. On June 24, 2019,
Defendants Atria Management Company, LLC and Atria Senior
Living, Inc. (“Defendants”) filed their
Opposition. On July 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Reply.
Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and Local Rule 7-15, the Court finds that this matter is
appropriate for decision without oral argument. The hearing
calendared for July 15, 2019 is hereby vacated and the matter
taken off calendar. After considering the moving, opposing,
and reply papers, and the arguments therein, the Court rules
provides expanded original diversity jurisdiction for class
actions meeting the amount in controversy and minimal
diversity and numerosity requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(d)(2).” United Steel, Paper &
Forestry, Rubber, Mfg., Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv.
Workers Int'l Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. Shell Oil Co.,
602 F.3d 1087, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2010); see Ibarra v.
Manheim Investments, Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1195 (9th Cir.
2015) (“A CAFA-covered class action may be removed to
federal court, subject to more liberalized jurisdictional
requirements”). CAFA vests district courts with
“original jurisdiction of any civil action in which the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5, 000,
000, exclusive of interest and costs, ” and is a class
action consisting of more than 100 members “in which .
. . any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a
State different from any defendant.” 28 U.S.C. §
1332(d); see also Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles,
568 U.S. 588 (2013).
antiremoval presumption attends cases invoking CAFA, which
Congress enacted to facilitate adjudication of certain class
actions in federal court.” Dart Cherokee Basin
Operating System Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 135
S.Ct. 547, 554 (2014). However, “under CAFA the burden
of establishing removal jurisdiction remains, as before, on
the proponent of federal jurisdiction.” Abrego
Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 685 (9th
Cir. 2006). “A defendant seeking removal of a putative
class action must demonstrate, by a preponderance of
evidence, that the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds
the jurisdictional minimum.” Rodriguez v. AT &
T Mobility Servs. LLC, 728 F.3d 975, 981 (9th Cir.
2013). “When plaintiffs favor state court and have
prepared a complaint that does not assert the amount in
controversy, or that affirmatively states that the amount in
controversy does not exceed $5, 000, 000, if a defendant
wants to pursue a federal forum under CAFA, that defendant in
a jurisdictional dispute has the burden to put forward
evidence showing that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,
000, 000, to satisfy other requirements under CAFA, and to
persuade the court that the estimate of damages in
controversy is a reasonable one.” Ibarra, 775
F.3d at 1197. “CAFA's requirements are to be tested
by consideration of real evidence and the reality of what is
at stake in the litigation, using reasonable assumptions
underlying the defendant's theory of damages
exposure.” Id. at 1198.
Dart Cherokee, 135 S.Ct. 547, the Supreme Court did
not mandate that a plaintiff seeking to remand an action must
always submit evidence challenging the amount in controversy.
Instead, the Supreme Court in Dart Cherokee, along
with the Ninth Circuit in Ibarra, only require a
plaintiff to come forward with contrary evidence when the
removing defendant has produced evidence to meet its initial
burden. See, e.g., Ibarra, 775 F.3d at 1197 (holding
that a “defendant in a jurisdictional dispute has the
burden to put forward evidence showing that the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million . . . and to persuade the
court that the estimate of damages in controversy is a
reasonable one”); see also Id. at 1199
(“[Defendant], as the removing [party], has the burden
of proof on this”). Once the defendant has done so,
then the burden shifts to the plaintiff to produce evidence.
In other words, although the plaintiff may rebut the
defendant's evidence with his or her own evidence, he or
she need not do so in order to prevail on his or her motion
for remand. See, e.g., Leon v. Gordon Trucking,
Inc., 2014 WL 7447701, *10, fn. 40 (C.D. Cal. 2014)
(“Here, [plaintiff] filed a motion to remand; thus
Dart Cherokee makes clear that it was
[defendant's] burden to come forth with evidence
establishing the amount in controversy. As noted, it has
failed to do so”); Marentes v. Key Energy Svcs.
Cal., Inc., 2015 WL 756516, *3 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
(granting motion to remand based on plaintiff's challenge
to defendant's calculations as “rely[ing] solely on
speculation and unsubstantiated assumptions”);
Reyna v. Fore Golf Management, Inc., 2015 WL 881390,
*1 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (granting motion to remand in wage and
hour class action where plaintiff moved to remand based
solely on challenges to defendant's evidence and
assumptions in calculating the amount in controversy).
reasons stated in Plaintiff's moving and reply papers,
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to State Court is
GRANTED. The Court signs the proposed
Statement of Decision lodged with the Court on July 3, 2019
[Docket No. 30-1]. In addition, Defendants failed to file the
proposed Statement of Decision required by section 5(f) of
the Court's Standing Order. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-12,
“[t]he failure to file any required document, or the
failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent
to the granting or denial of the motion . . . .” The
Court deems Defendants' failure to file the proposed
Statement of Decision as consent to the granting of
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to State Court.
action is REMANDED to Los Angeles ...