Habitat for Humanity Ventura County v. ACE American Insurance Company et al

Filing 9

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE: SHOW CAUSE RE: REMAND by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 7/12/2017. (vdr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 17-4470 FMO (JEMx)

Title

Habitat for Humanity Ventura County, Inc. v. Ace American Insurance
Company, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

July 5, 2017

Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge

Vanessa Figueroa

None

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorney Present for Plaintiff:

Attorney Present for Defendants:

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Remand

Plaintiff Habitat for Humanity Ventura County, Inc. (“Habitat for Humanity”) brought this
action against defendants Ace American Insurance Company and Chubb North American
(collectively, “defendants”) in Ventura County Superior Court on May 2, 2017. (See Dkt. 1-1,
Complaint). Defendants removed the action on June 16, 2017, on diversity jurisdiction grounds
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (See Dkt. 1, Notice of Removal at ¶ 7). In relevant part, 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a) provides that “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and
is between . . . citizens of different States[.]” Federal courts have a duty to examine jurisdiction
sua sponte before proceeding to the merits of a case, see Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526
U.S. 574, 583, 119 S.Ct. 1563, 1569 (1999), “even in the absence of a challenge from any party.”
Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 1244 (2006). The courts are
presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record. See
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n. 3, 126 S.Ct. 1854, 1861 (2006).
Having reviewed the Notice of Removal, the court questions whether this case satisfies the
requirements for diversity jurisdiction set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Specifically, defendants
contend in a conclusory and unsubstantiated manner, that they are “informed by [Habitat for
Humanity] that the amount [in controversy] exceeds $100,000 not including the request for punitive
damages,” (see Dkt. 1, Notice of Removal at ¶ 7), but do not attach any document or exhibit from
Habitat for Humanity setting forth the amount in controversy or provide any additional details
regarding Habitat for Humanity’s demand. (See, generally, id.). The court’s concern regarding
the amount in controversy is also based on the fact that the plaintiff in the underlying complaint
in this insurance action seeks damages for a faultily constructed bathroom in a mobile home and
seeks damages for emotional distress totaling $25,000. (See Dkt. 1-1, Complaint at ¶¶ 12 & 19).
Habitat for Humanity also made an offer to compromise, pursuant to California Civil Procedure
Code § 998, for $10,000. (See id. at ¶ 22).
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 17-4470 FMO (JEMx)

Date

Title

Habitat for Humanity Ventura County, Inc. v. Ace American Insurance
Company, et al.

July 5, 2017

1. No later than July 12, 2017, defendants shall file a Supplemental Memorandum re:
Jurisdiction, not to exceed five (5) pages, showing cause why this action should not be remanded
for the reasons set forth above. Defendants’ failure to show cause by the deadline set forth
in this paragraph shall be deemed as consent to the remand of this action to state court.
2. Plaintiff shall file a Response to Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum re: Jurisdiction
no later than July 17, 2017.
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

vdr

Page 2 of 2