Haynes v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
- Beth Freeman
- 5:25-cv-04234
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Haynes v. Costco, Judge Cousins ordered Costco to explain by June 5 why the case should not return to state court for lack of federal jurisdiction.
Costco must respond by June 5, 2025, explaining why the case should not be remanded to state court; the order concerns whether the federal court has jurisdiction over Haynes’s case.
What happened
In Haynes v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Costco removed the case from state court, claiming that the federal court had jurisdiction because the parties were diverse and more than $75,000 was at stake.
The court found that Costco had not provided facts or arguments supporting its claim that more than $75,000 was at stake. The court also said that Haynes’s refusal to agree that the amount was below $75,000 was irrelevant.
Judge Nathanael M. Cousins ordered Costco to show cause in writing by June 5, 2025, why the case should not be sent back to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court did not yet order a remand.
The detailed version
- Haynes v. Costco Wholesale Corporation · No. 5:25-cv-04234
- Beth Freeman
- May 22, 2025
Background
April Haynes sued Costco Wholesale Corporation in state court. Costco removed the case to federal court and asserted diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy greater than $75,000. The party that removes a case bears the burden of showing that removal is proper.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that Costco had to provide sufficient evidence showing, more likely than not, that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Costco’s notice of removal alleged that the threshold was satisfied because Haynes’s counsel would not agree that the amount in controversy was $75,000 or less.
The court held that Haynes’s refusal to make that agreement was irrelevant. A defect in subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be established or waived by agreement. Costco provided no other facts or arguments supporting its contention that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The court therefore could not find that diversity jurisdiction existed.
Order
The court ordered Costco to show cause in writing by June 5, 2025, why the case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The opinion is an order to show cause; it does not state that the case was remanded.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.