Pacific Hydrotech Corporation v. James River Insurance Company

Filing 14

MINUTE IN CHAMBERS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION by Judge Cormac J. Carney. Defendant is hereby ORDERED to show cause why this action should not be remanded for lack of jurisdiction. Defendant shall file an opposition to the Courts order by November 10, 2017. Plaintiff shall file any reply by November 17, 2017. The matter will be decided on the papers without any hearing. See document for further information. (dv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 17-01729-CJC(JDEx)

Date: October 26, 2017

Title: PACIFIC HYDROTECH CORPORATION V. JAMES RIVER INSURANCE
COMPANY

PRESENT:
HONORABLE CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Melissa Kunig
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:

None Present

N/A
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

None Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Plaintiff originally filed this lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court on August
14, 2017. (Dkt. 1 Ex. A [Complaint, hereinafter “Compl.”].) Plaintiff brings two causes
of action for declaratory relief and equitable contribution against Defendant. (Id.) On
October 2, 2017, Defendant removed the action to this Court, invoking diversity
jurisdiction. (Dkt. 1 [Notice of Removal].)
According to Plaintiff’s allegations, the Irvine Ranch Water District hired Plaintiff
as a contractor to drill a new well. (Compl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff in turn hired a subcontractor,
B&F Supply, Inc. (“B&F”), to install metal doors and finish hardware on the project. (Id.
¶ 8.) Defendant provided liability insurance to B&F. (Id. ¶ 9.) On October 9, 2014, one
of B&F’s employees, Frank Gonzalez, was injured while working on the project. (Id. ¶
13.) On July 1, 2016, Mr. Gonzalez filed a lawsuit against Plaintiff for his injuries. (Id. ¶
14.)
In the present action, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that Defendant must indemnity
Plaintiff in its lawsuit against Mr. Gonzalez. (Id. at Prayer for Relief.) Plaintiff’s
complaint lacks any factual allegations indicating the value of such a declaration.
Accordingly, it is unclear whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 as required
for the Court to exercise diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 17-01729-CJC(JDEx)

Date: October 26, 2017
Page 2

Whether subject matter jurisdiction exists may be raised by the Court sua sponte at
any time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). Defendant is hereby
ORDERED to show cause why this action should not be remanded for lack of
jurisdiction. Defendant shall file an opposition to the Court’s order by November 10,
2017. Plaintiff shall file any reply by November 17, 2017. The matter will be decided
on the papers without any hearing.
sl
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk MKU