Sarah J. Vidana v. General Motors LLC et al

Filing 15

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Mark C. Scarsi: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND #13 AND REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION . Defendant shall file a written response within 14 days. Plaintiff may respond to Defendant's response within seven days of its filing. (lc) Modified on 9/25/2023 (lc).

complete memorandum in support [of the motion] and the points and authorities
upon which [she] will rely.”
Notwithstanding, the Court questions its jurisdiction over the action on its
own motion. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 141 (2012) (obliging courts to
examine subject-matter jurisdiction issues sua sponte). Federal courts are of limited
jurisdiction, having subject-matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the
Constitution and Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377
(1994). A defendant may remove a civil action in state court to federal court if the
federal court has original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). There is
a “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction, and the removing party bears
the burden of proving that removal is proper. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566
(9th Cir. 1992).
To invoke diversity jurisdiction, a party must demonstrate that there is
complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and that the amount in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a). “[W]here it is unclear or ambiguous from the face of a state-court
complaint whether the requisite amount in controversy is pled,” the removing
defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in
controversy “more likely than not” exceeds $75,000. Guglielmino v. McKee Foods
Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007); Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102
F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996).
The amount in controversy is not clear from the face of the Complaint.
Plaintiff’s civil case cover sheet filed in state court indicates that the amount
demanded exceeds $25,000, (see Notice of Removal Ex. B, ECF No. 1-2), but
nothing in the Complaint indicates whether the total amount Plaintiff seeks exceeds
$75,000, (see generally Notice of Removal Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1). Cf. Schneider v.
Ford Motor Co., 441 F. Supp. 3d 909, 913 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (“[T]he Complaint
alleges that Plaintiff suffered damages in a sum to be proven at trial in an amount
that is not less than $25,001.00. Hence, while Plaintiff seeks restitution for the value
of the car, civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs, it is unclear whether all these
damages are subsumed within the request for $25,001.” (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted)). The Court questions Defendant’s representations concerning
the amount in controversy presented in the notice of removal.
The Court orders Defendant to show cause why the case should not be
remanded for lack of jurisdiction. Defendant shall file a written response within 14
Page 2 of 3

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk SMO

days either acknowledging the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction or establishing by a
preponderance of evidence that the amount in controversy “more likely than not”
exceeds $75,000. Guglielmino, 506 F.3d at 699; see also Dart Cherokee Basin
Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014) (requiring “[e]vidence
establishing the amount . . . when . . . the court questions[] the defendant’s
allegation” of the amount in controversy). Plaintiff may respond to Defendant’s
response within seven days of its filing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 3 of 3

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk SMO