Antranik Baghdassarian, an individual v. Ara Baghdassarian, an individual

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTRANIK BAGHDASSARIAN, an
individual,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ARA BAGHDASSARIAN, an individual,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-55458
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-10385-SVW-JC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted January 9, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: W. FLETCHER, M. SMITH, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to remand
to state court and the dismissal of his contract claim as time-barred under
California law. Because the preponderance of the evidence does not establish that
FILED
JAN 16 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, we reverse the denial of the motion to
remand.
We review de novo a denial of a motion to remand. Harris v. Bankers Life
& Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 692 (9th Cir. 2005). The district court correctly found
that it lacked federal question subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s
contract claims. The mere fact that the underlying facts of the case involve
trademark infringement does not confer federal question jurisdiction over this
contract dispute. Postal Instant Press v. Clark, 741 F.2d 256, 257 (9th Cir. 1984).
Nor does diversity jurisdiction exist here. The parties are of diverse citizenship,
but the defendant has not shown that the amount in controversy exceeds the
jurisdictional threshold.
The complaint does not state an amount in controversy. Where, as here, a
plaintiff has sought nonmonetary relief, the removing party may assert the amount
of controversy in the notice of removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(A). Removal is
proper if the district court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Id. § 1446(c)(2)(B).
The allegations in the complaint, including the allegation that Karoun
Dairies, Inc. is a “multi-million dollar business,” do not give rise to the inference
that the threatened harm to the plaintiff exceeds $75,000. See McNutt v. Gen.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

Motors Acceptance Corp. of Indiana, 298 U.S. 178, 181 (1936). Nor does the
notice of removal sufficiently state the value of the harm to the defendant that
would ensue were the court to deny relief. The defendant’s assertion that he would
place the value of his trademarks, goodwill, and the websites “in the tens of
millions of dollars” is purely speculative and insufficient to overcome the
presumption against removal jurisdiction. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564,
567 (9th Cir. 1992).
We therefore reverse the district court’s denial of the motion to remand to
state court. As the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the plaintiff’s
remaining arguments, we do not decide whether the district court was correct in
holding that the California statute of limitations bars the plaintiff’s claim. The
defendant’s request for judicial notice, the plaintiff’s supplemental request for
judicial notice, and the plaintiff’s motion to strike are denied.
REVERSED.
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --