NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL SAMMONS, No. 15-15275
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00574-GMN-
VCF
v.
RINO INTERNATIONAL MEMORANDUM*
CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Michael Sammons appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his diversity action seeking the
appointment of a receiver. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
review de novo, Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2015), and we
reverse and remand.
The district court dismissed Sammons’s action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction because it concluded that Sammons did not plead an amount in
controversy over $75,000. However, Sammons’s proposed First Amended
Complaint alleges that Rino International Corporation holds ownership interests in
foreign companies, previously valued at $258 million, which makes his
shareholder interest worth more than $75,000. Based on those allegations, it
cannot be determined to a legal certainty that Sammons failed to meet the amount
in controversy requirement. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Naffe, 789 F.3d at 1039-40
(setting forth elements of diversity jurisdiction and explaining that the “legal
certainty” test requires a “district court [to] accept the amount in controversy
claimed by the plaintiff unless it can declare to a legal certainty that the case is
worth less”); see also Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel.
Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 2010) (under the legal certainty test, “a
federal court has subject matter jurisdiction unless upon the face of the complaint,
it is obvious that the suit cannot involve the necessary amount” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and
2 15-15275
remand for further proceedings.
Sammons’s motion to submit the case on the briefs, filed on February 21,
2015, and his motion to submit the case to a screening panel, filed on February 24,
2015, are granted.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
3 15-15275