# Corner Computing Solutions v. Google LLC

> District Court, W.D. Washington · November 15, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10710263

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Washington
- **Decided:** November 15, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10710263

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4

5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
9 AT SEATTLE
10
11 CORNER COMPUTING SOLUTIONS; CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00939-TL
and DALE JAKE CORNER,
12 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Plaintiff,
13 v.
14 GOOGLE LLC,
15 Defendant.
16

17 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte (on its own motion). Defendant Google
18 has removed a case filed by Plaintiff Dale Jake Corner on behalf of himself and Corner
19 Computing Solutions SP, a sole proprietorship he owns (referred to collectively as “Plaintiff”)
20 (Dkt. No. 6 at 4) in Snohomish County Superior Court on diversity jurisdiction grounds. Dkt.
21 No. 1 at 2; Dkt. No. 1-2 at 1. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se (without an attorney)1 alleges:
22

1 As a sole proprietorship, Corner Computing Solutions does not require separate counsel. Amana Glob. Co. v. King
23
Cnty., No. C21-35537, 2021 WL 4843878, at *1, n.1 (9th Cir. Oct. 18, 2021) (noting that “an individual owner may
represent his sole proprietorship in a pro se capacity because a sole proprietorship has no legal existence apart from
24 its owner” (internal citation omitted)).
1 (1) breach of contract thorough “negligence in the inappropriate handling of the Google
2 AdWords account” for Corner Computing Solutions; (2) failure to remove “spurious origin and
3 ‘Prohibited and Restricted Content’ reviews;” (3) unfair refusal to remove those reviews “for 5
4 or more months;” and (4) a ban on the “DALEJAKECORNER” account “without pre

5 notification or communication.” Dkt. No. 1-2 at 1–2. . For these alleged violations, Plaintiff
6 requests relief in the amount of “150 Million United States Dollars.” Dkt. No. 1-2 at 3; Dkt. No.
7 1 at 2.
8 Federal courts have limited jurisdiction and must ensure that they have subject matter
9 jurisdiction of all matters before them. United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed,
10 Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). A defendant may remove cases that fall within a federal
11 court’s original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). However, “[r]emoval and subject matter
12 jurisdiction statutes are strictly construed, and a defendant seeking removal has the burden to
13 establish that removal is proper and any doubt is resolved against removability.” Hawaii ex rel.
14 Louie v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A., 761 F.3d 1027, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal citations and

15 quotation omitted).
16 Courts generally look to the operative complaint to establish the amount in controversy.
17 See, e.g., Mollett v. Aerotek, No. C20-6168, 2021 WL 1783339, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 5,
18 2021).
19 The removing party bears the burden of establishing that the amount in controversy
20 “more likely than not” exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp.,
21 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Acad. of Country Music v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 991 F.3d
22 1059, 1069 (9th Cir. 2021). The Ninth Circuit has “identified at least three different burdens of
23 proof which might be placed on a removing defendant under varying circumstances:” (1) it

24 appears to a “legal certainty” that the plaintiff cannot actually recover the amount alleged in the
1 complaint; (2) the face of the complaint is unclear or unambiguous as to the amount in
2 controversy; and (3) the complaint alleges an amount in controversy lower than the jurisdictional
3 threshold. Guglielmino, 506 F.3d at 699 (internal citations and quotations omitted). The Court is
4 not satisfied that Plaintiff can recover the monetary amount requested in the complaint.

5 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendant to show cause why this action should not be
6 remanded within fourteen (14) days of this Order (i.e., by November 29, 2023), with legal
7 authorities and factual bases supporting its assertions that the amount in controversy, if Plaintiff
8 succeeds on all claims, could exceed $75,000 as required under 28 U.S.C § 1332(a). Plaintiff
9 may submit one response to this Order by no later than December 6, 2023. No replies will be
10 allowed. Both briefs are limited to 2,100 words. Alternatively, Defendant may stipulate to a
11 remand.
12 Dated this 15th day of November 2023.
13
A
14
Tana Lin
United States District Judge
15

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10710263. Public record. Not legal advice.