ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND

ROBERT J. BRYAN, District Judge.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Dkt. 12). The Court has considered the motion, Defendant's Response (Dkt. 15), Plaintiff's Reply (Dkt. 18), and the remainder of the file herein.

Plaintiff filed the Complaint in Thurston County Superior Court on April 21, 2016. Dkt. 1-1. Defendant Safeway, an out of state corporation, is the sole defendant named in the Complaint, which alleges state law claims of negligence. Dkt. 1-1. Defendant removed the case on May 12, 2016 based on diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. 1 at 3. The Notice of Removal states that "the complaint does not identify the amount claimed but the plaintiff has claimed damages in excess of $75,000." Dkt. 1 at 3.

Plaintiff's motion raises a narrow issue, namely, whether the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) is satisfied. If not, the case lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and the case "shall be remanded." § 1332(a). The parties do not dispute diversity of citizenship.

In diversity jurisdiction cases, federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal. Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir.1979). "[T]he Supreme Court has drawn a sharp distinction between original jurisdiction and removal jurisdiction:

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566-67 (9th Cir. 1992), quoting St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288-290 (1938). The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence facts demonstrating that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 403-04 (9th Cir. 1996)."If it is unclear what amount of damages the plaintiff has sought . . . then the defendant bears the burden of actually proving the facts to support jurisdiction, including the jurisdictional amount." Gaus, 980 F.2d at 567. Courts may consider "summary-judgment-type evidence" relevant to the amount in controversy at the time of removal. Singer v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997).

According to Defendant, Plaintiff's counsel sent a demand letter to Defendant "claiming that Plaintiff sustained a fractured right hip, head trauma, spinal injuries to her neck and back and a right knee injury." Dkt. 16 at ¶ 2. The letter alleged damages of past medical expenses ($9,524.42), transportation expenses ($255.65), past income loss ($6,573.61), and general damages, including pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life ($70,000). Id. Based on this showing, Defendant has met its burden to show an amount in controversy over $75,000.

Plaintiff's arguments to the contrary are unavailing. The fact that Defendant's showing is "barely over the jurisdictional threshold," Dkt. 18 at 1, is inconsequential; the showing exceeds the minimum. Plaintiff's argument that Plaintiff "revealed the true valuation . . . in Plaintiff's response to request for statement of damages," Dkt. 18 at 1, at best only shows inconsistencies in the case valuation. Defendant's showing is based on the demand letter sent by Plaintiff that Defendant hand at the time of removal, which is the critical point of inquiry. St. Paul Mercury, 303 U.S. at 289-90.

Because Defendant has met its burden to show that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, Plaintiff's motion should be denied. The case should not be remanded. The Court notes Plaintiff's declared desire for the case to be sent to arbitration. Unlike local state court rules, arbitration is not required under federal court rules, but the Court expects the parties to make every reasonable effort to settle the case. The Court will entertain measures to assist the parties with that endeavor.

THEREFORE, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Dkt. 12) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party's last known address.