{"id":508,"date":"2026-01-23T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-23T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=508"},"modified":"2026-01-23T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-23T12:00:00","slug":"lin-amazon-cd-cal-eye-injury-permanent-blindness-remand-amount-controversy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=508","title":{"rendered":"Lin v. Amazon.com \u2014 C.D. Cal. Remands Eye-Injury Suit, Holding Allegations of Permanent Blindness Alone Cannot Satisfy $75,000 Threshold"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Le Geng Lin v. Amazon.com, Inc.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Central District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-23<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
2:25-cv-02063-CV<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Removal, amount in controversy, permanent blindness, product liability, Doe defendants, sanctions, complete diversity, LLC citizenship<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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. \u00a7 1447(c) for what he called improper removal.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court granted the remand motion and denied the sanctions motion.<\/p>\n

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 \u2014 making Washington its principal place of business under the Hertz \u201cnerve center\u201d test. Lin\u2019s argument that Amazon should be treated as a California citizen because of its substantial California operations was rejected: a corporation that operates broadly \u201ccan scarcely be deemed at home in all of them\u201d (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\u2019s reliance on the resident-defendant rule because neither defendant is a California citizen, and disregarded the citizenship of unidentified Doe defendants under \u00a7 1441(b)(1).<\/p>\n

On the amount in controversy, however, the court held Amazon failed to carry its preponderance burden. Because Lin\u2019s 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 \u201cnecessarily\u201d 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 \u2014 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).<\/p>\n

On the sanctions motion, the court denied fees because Amazon\u2019s removal was not objectively unreasonable: it correctly established diversity, and Lin\u2019s allegations did describe a serious injury. The court added that pro se plaintiffs cannot recover attorney\u2019s fees under \u00a7 1447(c) (citing Guttman v. Silverberg).<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n