Ezubeik v. Pro Park, Inc. et al

Filing 11

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. Defendant is ordered to show cause, in writing and no later than October 24, 2008, why the action should not be remanded for lack of su bject matter jurisdiction. If plaintiff wishes to file a reply to defendant's showing, plaintiff shall file his reply no later than October 31, 2008. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on October 10, 2008. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FARAG EZUBEIK, Plaintiff, v. PRO PARK, INC., Defendant /

No. 08-4546 MMC ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

United States District Court

Before the Court is defendant's Notice of Removal, filed September 29, 2008, in which notice defendant asserts the federal district court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).1 In support of its assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, defendant states it is "informed and believes that [p]laintiff seeks in excess of $75,000 in alleged back pay, front pay, unpaid wages, and emotional distress damages in this action." (See Not. of Removal ¶ 2.) Defendant thus appears to rely wholly on the allegations of plaintiff's complaint. The complaint, while indicating plaintiff has lost wages and incurred emotional distress as a result of defendant's alleged constructive termination of plaintiff's employment, includes no allegations from which it can be concluded that plaintiff's asserted damages necessarily exceed the sum of $75,000. As a consequence, defendant has failed On October 7, 2008, the matter was reassigned to the undersigned.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

to make the requisite showing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding defendant in removed action "bears the burden of actually proving the facts to support jurisdiction, including the jurisdictional amount"). Accordingly, defendant is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing and no later than October 24, 2008, why the instant action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If plaintiff wishes to file a reply to defendant's showing, plaintiff shall file his reply no later than October 31, 2008. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 10, 2008

MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

2