Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Le Geng Lin, a Temple City, California resident proceeding pro se, sued Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Services, LLC in Los Angeles County Superior Court in March 2024, alleging he suffered permanent blindness after striking his eye on the sharp corner of a bedside table he had purchased through Amazon. He sought general damages, past and future medical expenses, property damages, lost earnings, diminished earning capacity, costs of suit, and other damages, but did not plead a specific dollar amount.
Amazon removed the case in March 2025 under diversity jurisdiction. Lin moved to remand, arguing the parties were not completely diverse and the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000. He also moved for sanctions and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for what he called improper removal.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the remand motion and denied the sanctions motion.
On complete diversity, the court found that Amazon had carried its burden. An unrebutted declaration from corporate counsel established that Amazon.com, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware with its headquarters and executive officers in Washington — making Washington its principal place of business under the Hertz “nerve center” test. Lin’s argument that Amazon should be treated as a California citizen because of its substantial California operations was rejected: a corporation that operates broadly “can scarcely be deemed at home in all of them” (Daimler AG v. Bauman). The court also confirmed that Amazon.com Services, LLC is a Washington/Delaware citizen because its sole member (Amazon.com Sales, Inc.) is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Seattle. The court rejected Lin’s reliance on the resident-defendant rule because neither defendant is a California citizen, and disregarded the citizenship of unidentified Doe defendants under § 1441(b)(1).
On the amount in controversy, however, the court held Amazon failed to carry its preponderance burden. Because Lin’s complaint did not specify a dollar amount, Amazon needed evidence quantifying the damages. Instead, Amazon argued that allegations of a serious eye injury and multiple categories of damages “necessarily” placed more than $75,000 in controversy. The court rejected that conclusory showing, citing the strong presumption against removal jurisdiction. The court collected cases declining to find the threshold satisfied based solely on injury severity — including Barria v. Dole Food Co. (allegations of sterility insufficient) and Lambertson v. Go Fit (near-complete blindness in one eye and partial vision loss insufficient).
On the sanctions motion, the court denied fees because Amazon’s removal was not objectively unreasonable: it correctly established diversity, and Lin’s allegations did describe a serious injury. The court added that pro se plaintiffs cannot recover attorney’s fees under § 1447(c) (citing Guttman v. Silverberg).
Key Takeaways
- To establish complete diversity, defendants can submit unrebutted corporate declarations identifying state of incorporation, headquarters, and (for LLCs) member citizenship.
- The Hertz “nerve center” test makes a corporation’s headquarters and executive offices the principal place of business, even when the corporation operates broadly elsewhere.
- An LLC’s citizenship is determined by its members, not its place of formation or principal place of business.
- The resident-defendant rule (28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2)) only applies when the defendant is a citizen of the forum state.
- Doe defendants’ citizenship is disregarded for removal purposes unless plaintiff provides “a definite clue” to their identity.
- Allegations of serious or permanent injury — even permanent blindness — without damages quantification are insufficient to establish the $75,000 amount in controversy.
- Even if removal is ultimately remanded, sanctions under § 1447(c) require an objectively unreasonable basis; correctly-pleaded diversity and a colorable amount-in-controversy theory will defeat sanctions.
- Pro se plaintiffs are not entitled to attorney’s fees under § 1447(c).
Why It Matters
This decision is a noteworthy reminder that the amount-in-controversy requirement has real bite even in serious-injury cases. Defendants cannot rely on the bare severity of an injury — even permanent blindness — to establish removal jurisdiction. They must produce evidence quantifying medical bills, lost wages, or other damages, or point to specific allegations in the complaint that reasonably support a calculation above $75,000.
For California product-liability plaintiffs, the case is a potential template for staying in state court: plead damages without specific dollar amounts and decline to settle for above-threshold offers. For Amazon and other large defendants in product cases, the practical lesson is to build the amount-in-controversy showing with concrete evidence — medical records, settlement demands, or specific damage calculations — rather than relying on the apparent seriousness of the injury alone.