Mageno v. DavidsTea, Inc., CV 19-6473 DSF (FFMx). (2019)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20190919699
Visitors: 10
Filed: Sep. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 17, 2019
Summary: Order DENYING Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 11) DALE S. FISCHER , District Judge . Plaintiff Perla Mageno moves to remand this case, claiming that the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction has not been met. The Court deems this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. The hearing set for September 23, 2019 is removed from the Court's calendar. Plaintiff purports to limit the recovery demanded in the complaint to l
Summary: Order DENYING Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 11) DALE S. FISCHER , District Judge . Plaintiff Perla Mageno moves to remand this case, claiming that the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction has not been met. The Court deems this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. The hearing set for September 23, 2019 is removed from the Court's calendar. Plaintiff purports to limit the recovery demanded in the complaint to le..
More
Order DENYING Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 11)
DALE S. FISCHER, District Judge.
Plaintiff Perla Mageno moves to remand this case, claiming that the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction has not been met. The Court deems this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. The hearing set for September 23, 2019 is removed from the Court's calendar.
Plaintiff purports to limit the recovery demanded in the complaint to less than $75,000. This is incorrect on the face of the complaint because, while Plaintiff purports to limit the cost of injunctive relief to less than $50,000 and monetary relief to $24,999,1 attorney's fees are clearly excluded from these amounts. See Compl. ¶ 49 ("Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.") (emphasis added).
The motion to remand is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The Court is skeptical that specific injunctive relief could be demanded yet the cost of that injunctive relief could be artificially limited by the plaintiff to an amount certain regardless of the actual expected cost of the relief sought. However, the Court need not reach this question.
Source: Leagle
