Arakji v. Microchip Technology, Inc.

Background

Mazen Arakji, a pro se plaintiff, alleged that Microsemi Corporation, which was later acquired by Microchip Technology, Inc., unlawfully discriminated against him by declining to hire him and harassing him because of his religion, national origin, ancestry, ethnic characteristics, and disability. He alleged that he applied for several firmware engineer positions, participated in telephone and on-site interviews, and was later told that an interview had been voided and that another interview had been canceled.

Arakji filed two claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act in the Superior Court of California for Santa Clara County: denial of employment and employment harassment based on religious creed, national origin, ancestry, and disability. He sought monetary damages, punitive damages, and declaratory or injunctive relief, but his complaint did not specify a damages amount.

Removal and Motion to Remand

Microchip removed the case to the Northern District of California based on diversity jurisdiction. The opinion states that Microchip is a citizen of Delaware and Arizona because it is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Chandler, Arizona. Arakji did not challenge the existence of complete diversity. Instead, he argued that the amount in controversy was below the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold.

After removal, Arakji submitted a California damages form seeking $74,000 for pain, suffering, and inconvenience, along with injunctive relief requiring an employment offer for the position he had interviewed for. He stated that he was not seeking lost earnings and that the employment offer could be at a salary equal to or greater than the legal minimum. Microchip argued that the value of the requested employment had to be added to the $74,000 damages claim.

Court’s Analysis

For removal based on diversity jurisdiction, the defendant must plausibly allege that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Once the plaintiff challenges that amount, the defendant must establish it by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that it is more likely than not that the threshold is satisfied.

The court did not decide whether Arakji’s post-removal damages statement was a bad-faith attempt to defeat federal jurisdiction. It also declined to treat Microchip’s attorney argument about an $85,000 average firmware-engineer salary as evidence. Instead, the court accepted Arakji’s damages statement at face value and considered the value of the requested employment.

The court explained that, in a case seeking an injunction, the amount in controversy includes the value of the object of the requested injunction. Viewing the requested employment in the light most favorable to Arakji, the court valued it at least at California’s 2019 minimum wage of $12 per hour. The court concluded that the value of less than one month of employment would exceed the $1,000.01 difference between Arakji’s $74,000 damages claim and the $75,000 threshold. The court therefore found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.

Disposition

The court denied Arakji’s motion to remand the case to the Superior Court of California. This order decided the federal court’s jurisdiction over removal; it did not decide the merits of Arakji’s discrimination or harassment claims.