United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
L. ROBART UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
court has reviewed Defendants Jorge Cambronero and Jane Doe
Cambronero's (collectively, “the
Cambroneros”) notice of removal and finds an
insufficient basis for subject matter jurisdiction. (Not. of
Rem. (Dkt. # 1).) The court therefore ORDERS the Cambroneros
to show cause within fourteen (14) days why this matter
should not be remanded for lack of subject matter
Cambroneros assert that the court's subject matter
jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship under 28
U.S.C. § 1332. (See Not. of Rem. at 2-5.)
Section 1332 provides that the district courts “shall
have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,
000[.00] . . . and is between citizens of different
states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The removing defendant
must show that the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000.00.
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 1446(c);
Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhokta,
599 F.3d 1102, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 2010). In general, the
defendant's notice of removal must include only a
plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds
the jurisdictional threshold. See Dart Cherokee Basin
Operating Co. v. Owens, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 547,
553-54 (2014). If the court questions the removing
defendant's allegations regarding the amount in
controversy, however, the defendant must demonstrate by a
preponderance of the evidence that more than $75, 000.00 is
in controversy. See Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. §
1446(c)(2)(B)); Geographic Expeditions, 599 F.3d at
1106-07 (citing Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564,
566-67 (9th Cir. 1992)). Here, the court questions the
their notice of removal, the Cambroneros assert several times
that the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000.00.
(See Not. of Rem. at 2-5.) Specifically, they point
to their counsel's declaration as evidence that Ms.
Treglown alleges injuries resulting in approximately $94,
850.35 in special damages. (Id. at 5 (citing Reppart
Decl. (Dkt. # 2) ¶ 3, Ex. 5); see also Id. at 2
(citing Reppart Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 3).) The court's
review of that declaration, however, reveals no evidence
regarding the amount in controversy, aside from counsel's
assertion that Ms. Treglown “claim[s] more than $75,
000[.00] by asserting in excess of this amount in a
pre-litigation settlement demand.” (Reppart Decl.
¶ 4); cf. Matheson v. Progressive Specialty
Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (per
curiam) (“[T]he parties cannot stipulate to
jurisdiction where none exists.”). In addition, the
exhibits the Cambroneros cite do not support their
allegations. (See Not. of Rem. at 2, 5.) Exhibit
3-Ms. Treglown's counsel's due diligence
declaration-contains no information related to the amount in
controversy. (Reppart Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 3.) And Exhibit
5-an email in which Mr. Cambronero states that he lives in
Costa Rica-also sheds no light on the amount in controversy.
(Reppart Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. 5.) Moreover, the notice of
removal contains no other allegations related to the amount
in controversy. (See generally Reppart Decl.; Not.
a settlement demand can demonstrate the amount in
controversy, see Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d
837, 840 (9th Cir. 2002), the Cambroneros filings fall short
because of (1) the difference between the amount referenced
in their notice of removal-$94, 850.35-and the amount
referenced in their counsel's declaration-“more
than $75, 000[.00], ” and (2) their citations to
exhibits that have no bearing on the amount in controversy
(see Not. of Rem. at 5; Reppart Decl. ¶ 4). For
those reasons, the court questions whether this lawsuit
implicates an amount exceeding $75, 000.00.
on the foregoing analysis, the court DIRECTS the Cambroneros
to show cause why the court should not remand for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. The Cambroneros must file their
response within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order.
If the Cambroneros fail to respond or otherwise demonstrate
the required amount in controversy, the court will remand
this matter to King County Superior Court.
 Per the Cambroneros' notice of
removal, Plaintiff Rhonda Treglown wrongly named the
defendants as Jorge Cabronero and Jane Doe Cabronero. (Not.
of Rem. at 1.) Thus, the court DIRECTS the Clerk to change
the defendants' names to “Jorge Cambronero”
and “Jane Doe Cambronero.”
 The Cambroneros incorrectly cite at
least one of their exhibits. (Compare Not. of Rem.
at 5 (citing Reppart Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 5), with
Reppart Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. 5.) The incorrect citation likely
emanates from the misnumbered paragraphs in Ms. ...