Macedo v. Dolgen California, LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denies plaintiff Cecilia Macedo’s motion to remand and denies defendants’ motion for sanctions. The court concludes that the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction is satisfied based on the settlement demand, potential emotional-distress and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. The court also finds insufficient evidence of subjective bad faith to support sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

Holdings

1. Defendants established that the amount in controversy plausibly exceeded $75,000. The settlement demand, emotional-distress and punitive-damages claims, attorneys' fees potentially recoverable through trial, and other claimed damages collectively satisfied the jurisdictional threshold.
2. Sanctions were not warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 or the court's inherent authority because the settlement demand made after removal did not establish that the motion to remand was filed recklessly, frivolously, or in subjective bad faith.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.
2. Whether Macedo's post-removal settlement demand, together with the nature of her claims and requested damages, demonstrated that the jurisdictional threshold was satisfied.
3. Whether Macedo and her counsel acted in subjective bad faith by filing and refusing to withdraw the motion to remand, warranting sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 or the court's inherent authority.
4. Whether Macedo was entitled to attorneys' fees incurred as a result of removal.

Disposition

other