Nieves v. Wildflower

Background

In January 2019, Jane Nieves received a twenty-minute free Thai massage from Lea Wildflower, whom the opinion describes as a massage therapist. In February 2020, Nieves sued Wildflower in Marin County Superior Court for a lower-back injury that she attributed to the massage. Wildflower removed the case to federal court based solely on diversity jurisdiction.

Nieves moved to remand, meaning she asked the federal court to return the case to state court because the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires that the plaintiff and defendant be citizens of different states and that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000.

Analysis

The court explained that federal courts strictly construe removal statutes and that the party removing a case bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Because the state-court complaint did not state the amount demanded, Wildflower’s removal notice had to include a plausible allegation, supported by facts or reasonable inferences, that more than $75,000 was at stake.

The court found that Wildflower did not meet that burden. The removal notice’s amount-in-controversy allegation was conclusory, was made on an information-and-belief basis, and was not supported by facts or reasonable inferences. The complaint alleged that Nieves had experienced lower-back pain before the massage, that the massage aggravated it, that she had two doctor visits and pain-management treatment, and that she did not know the exact amount of her damages. Those allegations made it equally possible that the damages were below or above $75,000.

The court did not resolve the disputed question of the parties’ citizenship because the amount-in-controversy requirement was not plausibly established. It also concluded that Wildflower’s reference to Nieves’s attorney declining to stipulate that the amount was below $75,000 did not establish jurisdiction, because parties cannot create federal subject-matter jurisdiction by agreement.

Disposition

The court held that the case had been removed improvidently and without jurisdiction and remanded it to the California Superior Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The request for jurisdictional discovery and the motion to dismiss were terminated as moot. Judge Donato did not decide the underlying personal-injury claim.