Roberto Martinez v. CRAB ADDISON, INC., Erroneously Sued As Joe’s Crab Shack, Inc.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERTO MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CRAB ADDISON, INC., Erroneously
Sued As Joe’s Crab Shack, Inc.,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE,
Defendant.
No. 09-56573
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02084-SVW-
JWJ
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 4, 2009
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER, BERZON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
FILED
NOV 17 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

The district court’s determination that Crab Addison failed to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), was
not clearly erroneous. See Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 683
(9th Cir. 2006). Specifically, the district court did not clearly err in determining
that the declaration of Kevin Cottingim failed to disclose critical information and
assumptions, including the number of weeks or pay-periods that were used in its
calculations, and that this failure made the declaration insufficient to establish that
the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. The district court
also violated no constitutional rights in considering Martinez’s notice of
supplemental authority; courts have long recognized the propriety of considering
such notices of relevant case law. See, e.g., Fed. R. App. P. 28(j).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --