Rodriguez v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

Background

Mayte Rodriguez alleged that she slipped and fell on smashed produce at Costco’s location at 4801 Central Avenue in Richmond, California, on September 24, 2021. She alleged that the produce was not cleaned up promptly and that the fall caused significant hip and knee injuries. The opinion states that she underwent physical therapy, right knee arthroscopy, and medial plica removal.

Rodriguez filed her complaint in Contra Costa Superior Court. The complaint identified categories of damages, including wage loss, medical and hospital expenses, general damages, loss of earning capacity, and future medical expenses, future wage loss, and future general damages, but did not state a total damages amount. A later case management statement estimated her medical expenses at about $70,000. A pre-suit settlement demand listed medical bills of $62,725.77 and sought damages for past and future pain and suffering and future medical expenses.

Costco filed an answer and then removed the case to federal court under the federal diversity-jurisdiction statute. The parties did not dispute that they had complete diversity, meaning the parties were citizens of different states. The dispute concerned whether more than $75,000 was at stake.

Analysis

The court explained that the party removing a case from state court must establish federal jurisdiction. Because Rodriguez’s complaint did not clearly state the amount in controversy, the court applied the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, which asks whether it was more likely than not that the amount at stake exceeded $75,000.

The court treated Rodriguez’s medical-expense figures as reasonable estimates of her claim. It also considered her claims for wage loss, loss of earning capacity, general damages, future medical expenses, future wage loss, and future general damages. The court noted that her alleged wage loss could extend for 30 months or more and concluded that these additional categories could satisfy the remaining amount needed above her medical expenses. The court also found that comparable jury verdicts involving knee and other bodily injuries supported Costco’s position.

Disposition

The court held that Costco met its burden to show that the amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied. It therefore DENIED Rodriguez’s motion to remand. The parties were ordered to appear for an initial case management conference on December 6, 2024, and to file their conference statement by November 29, 2024. The opinion ruled on federal jurisdiction and removal; it did not decide whether Costco was liable for Rodriguez’s injuries.