US Bank National Association v. Richard Olea et al

Filing 7

ORDER TO SHOW RE: AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Defendants are ordered to file a brief, not to exceed five pages, by Friday, January 4, 2013, showing cause why this action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant should also deliver a courtesy copy to chambers. Failure to file a brief in accordance with this Order will be deemed consent to remand of this action. (lc). Modified on 12/17/2012 (lc).

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

U.S. BANK NATIONAL, as
Trustee and successor in
interest to BANK OF AMERICA
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

13
Plaintiff,
14
v.
15
16

RICHARD OLEA; CLAYTON M.
BERNARD EX,

17
18

Defendants.
___________________________

19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 12-09686 DDP (PJWx)
ORDER TO SHOW RE: AMOUNT IN
CONTROVERSY

Defendants are ordered to show cause why this action should

20

not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

21

Defendants appear to have removed the action to this court on the

22

basis of federal question jurisdiction.

23

“Under the longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule, however, a

24

suit ‘arises under’ federal law only when the plaintiff’s statement

25

of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon federal

26

law.”

27

citation, and alteration omitted).

28

predicated on a defense or counterclaim.

(Notice of Removal ¶19.)

Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (quotation,
“Federal law” cannot be
Id.

No federal question

1

appears from the face of the complaint, so it does not appear that

2

the court has jurisdiction on the basis of a federal question.

3

Defendants also appear to have removed the action on the basis

4

of diversity jurisdiction.

5

has original jurisdiction over actions between different states

6

where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.1

7

1332(a).

8

damages that meet the $75,000 jurisdictional requirement.

9

damages apparently alleged in the complaint are “the fair rental

10

(Notice of Removal ¶ 21.)

This court

28 U.S.C.

It is not clear to the court that the complaint alleges

value of the premises” at $50 per day.

The only

(Compl., Exh. 1.)

11

Accordingly, Defendants are ordered to file a brief, not to

12

exceed five pages, by Friday, January 4, 2013, showing cause why

13

this action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter

14

jurisdiction.

15

chambers, Room 244-J, Second Floor, 312 N. Spring Street, Los

16

Angeles.

17

will be deemed consent to remand of this action.

Defendant should also deliver a courtesy copy to

Failure to file a brief in accordance with this Order

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22

Dated: December 17, 2012
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

In Defendants’ filing at Dkt. No. 6, they assert that the
damages incurred to the defendant are in excess of $75,000 as
indicated in the Notice of Removal. The court cannot locate that
figure in the Notice of Removal and notes that in any case, the
amount in controversy must be at issue in the Complaint itself.
2