LeFlore v. Bollinger Industries et al

Filing 3

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Response due by 7/1/2005.. Signed by Judge Charles Breyer on June 17, 2005. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2005) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/20/2005 (be, COURT STAFF).

LeFlore v. Bollinger Industries et al

Doc. 3

Case 3:05-cv-02428-CRB

Document 3

Filed 06/17/2005

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

U n it e d United States District Court

11 12
For the Northern District of California

G L E N N A LEFLORE, P l a i n ti f f , v. BO LL IN GE R INDUSTRIES, et al., De fend ant. /

N o . C 05-02428 CRB O R D E R TO SHOW CAUSE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintif f filed a complaint in state court alleging personal injuries caused by products m a n u f a c t u r e d and sold by defendants. Now pending before the Court is defendants' Notice o f Removal based on diversity jurisdiction. A district court may sua sponte raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. See Galt G / S v. Hapag-Lloyd AG, 60 F.3d 1370, 1373 (9th Cir. 1995). As the party invoking the co ur t's diversity jurisdiction, a removing defendant bears the burden of establishing by a pre pon der anc e of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. See S a n c h e z v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). If it is unclear f r o m the complaint what amount of damages plaintiff seeks, "the defendant bears the burden o f actually proving the facts to support jurisdiction, including the jurisdictional amount." Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that the removing defendant needs to "provide e v i d e n c e establishing that it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy exceeds

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:05-cv-02428-CRB

Document 3

Filed 06/17/2005

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

t h a t amount.") (internal quotations and citations omitted). A defendant must set forth in the remo val petition itself the underlying facts supporting its assertion that the amount in con trov ersy is met. See Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. "Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if t h e r e is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance." Id. I n Valdez, for example, the defendant removed the plaintiff's state tort-law action on divers ity grounds. The removal petition stated merely that "`upon information and belief, [it] s u b m i t s that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00.'" As the plaintiff did not move t o remand, the district court never addressed whether the amount-in-controversy requirement w a s satisfied. The district court granted the defendant summary judgment on the merits and t h e plaintiff appealed. On appeal the Ninth Circuit sua sponte determined that it could not r e a c h the merits of the appeal because it was unable to satisfy itself that the court had subject ma tter jurisdiction. Id. at 1117. The court concluded that the defendant's statement that u p o n information and belief the amount in controversy was met "hardly constitutes proof `by a preponderance of the evidence.'" Id. Accordingly, the court remanded the action to the d i s tr i c t court for a determination of whether the amount in controversy is sufficient to confer rem ova l jurisdiction. Id. at 1118. The Court is not satisfied that defendant has proved that the amount in controversy is m e t . As in Valdez, defendants claim that the amount in controversy is met based only upon i n f o r m a ti o n and belief. The attached complaint seeks general damages and medical e x p e n s e s , and pleads only that damages exceed $25,000. T h e r e f o r e , defendant is hereby ORDERED to show cause why this case should not be re m an de d. On or before July 1, 2005 defendant shall file a submission demonstrating by a pre pon der anc e of the evidence that the amount in controversy is met. If defendant fails to f i l e a brief by that time, the Court will remand the case. I T IS SO ORDERED. /s/ CHARLES R. BREYER U N I TE D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court

11 12
For the Northern District of California

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

D a t e d : June 17, 2005

G:\CRBALL\2005\2428\OSC.wpd

2

Case 3:05-cv-02428-CRB

Document 3

Filed 06/17/2005

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

United States District Court

11 12
For the Northern District of California

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

G:\CRBALL\2005\2428\OSC.wpd