Arthur Mogilefsky v. Harrys, Inc et al
Filing
9
Order to Show Cause re: Subject Matter Jurisdiction by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: the Court orders Defendant to show cause in writing no later than April 19, 2017 why this action should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to respond by the above date will result in the Court remanding this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. See minute order for details. (jy)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 17-2430 PSG (ASx)
Title
Arthur Mogilefsky v. Harry’s, Inc.
Present: The Honorable
Date
April 5, 2017
Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge
Wendy Hernandez
Not Reported
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s):
Attorneys Present for Defendant(s):
Not Present
Not Present
Proceedings (In Chambers):
Order to Show Cause re: Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Defendant Harry’s Inc. removed this action to federal court on March 29, 2017. Dkt. # 1.
However, it appears the Court may lack subject matter jurisdiction because:
[X]
Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a). A corporation is named as a party. The Notice of Removal is deficient
because the Notice of Removal does not set forth the corporation’s state(s) of
incorporation and its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c).
[X]
Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a), but the matter in controversy does not appear to exceed $75,000,
exclusive of interest and costs. The Complaint does not allege a specific amount
in controversy, but Defendant alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000 based on an email from Plaintiff to Defendant demanding $20,000,000.
When it is not evident from the face of the complaint that the alleged damages
exceed $75,000, a defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
the jurisdictional threshold is met. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117
(9th Cir. 2004); Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 403–04 (9th
Cir. 1996). Conclusory allegations that the amount in controversy is satisfied are
insufficient. Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th
Cir. 2003) (per curiam). To proceed in federal court, Defendant must provide the
Court with more information to establish the amount in controversy.
Accordingly, the Court orders Defendant to show cause in writing no later than April 19,
2017 why this action should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Failure to respond by the above date will result in the Court remanding this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CV-90 (10/08)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 17-2430 PSG (ASx)
Title
Arthur Mogilefsky v. Harry’s, Inc.
CV-90 (10/08)
Date
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
April 5, 2017
Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?