VILLAGOMEZ v. LINCOLN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON

Background

Candida Villagomez alleged that her former employer, Document Technologies, terminated her after she injured her hip, underwent surgery, and became temporarily disabled. She alleged that Document Technologies failed to accommodate her disability and failed to participate in the required process for discussing possible accommodations. She had initiated private arbitration against Document Technologies as required by her employment agreement.

Villagomez separately sued Lincoln Life Assurance Company of Boston in state court. She alleged that Lincoln handled employee leave for Document Technologies, placed her on long-term disability for two years even though her medical records indicated that she would recover sooner, and acted in concert with Document Technologies. Her claims were for negligent misrepresentation, aiding and abetting a violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, violations of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and Unfair Competition Law, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Lincoln removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction requires that opposing parties be diverse and that more than $75,000, excluding interest and costs, be in controversy.

Motion to Remand

Villagomez moved to remand, meaning to return the case to state court. She argued that Lincoln had not shown that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. She asserted that benefits she received from California substantially offset her potential back-pay damages, leaving only $589.42 in controversy. At the hearing, she also argued that any arbitration award would offset her damages.

Lincoln submitted information that Villagomez had been paid $18.95 per hour and $3,284.67 per month. Based on the assumptions that she obtained no new employment, Lincoln calculated $42,700.71 in back pay for thirteen months and $39,416.04 in front pay for one year. Lincoln also relied on potential emotional-distress damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees.

When the complaint does not clearly establish the amount in controversy, the removing defendant must show by a preponderance of the evidence—that is, that it is more likely than not—that the amount exceeds $75,000. The amount in controversy can include general and special damages, recoverable attorney’s fees, and punitive damages when legally available.

Ruling

The court concluded that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. It identified the potential back pay, front pay, emotional-distress damages, attorney’s fees, and punitive damages as supporting that conclusion. The court stated that it could not conclude to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy was below the jurisdictional requirement and held that Lincoln had met its burden.

Judge Laurel Beeler denied Villagomez’s motion to remand and stated that the order resolved the motion identified as ECF No. 9.