Twin Star Ventures, Inc et al v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company

Filing 5

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED. No later than October 15, 2010, defendant shall show cause in writing why the action should not be remanded. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on September 24, 2010. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2010)

Download PDF
Twin Star Ventures, Inc et al v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company Doc. 5 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 Before the Court is defendant Universal Underwriters Insurance Company's Notice of Removal, filed September 22, 2010, in which notice defendant asserts the federal district court has diversity jurisdiction over the claims alleged in plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). In the FAC, plaintiffs allege a claim for breach of contract and a claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which claims arise from plaintiffs' allegations that after a third party sued them, and they tendered their defense in the underlying action to defendant, defendant "denied plaintiffs' tender of defense" even though defendant was "obligated to provide plaintiffs with a defense and indemnification." (See FAC 9, 11-12, 20.) According to the FAC, the claim in the underlying action was "for common law invasion of privacy" (see FAC 10), and the underlying action has "settled" (see FAC 13). // TWIN STAR VENTURES, INC., et al., v. Plaintiffs, No. 10-4284 MMC ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED United States District Court IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. / Dockets.Justia.com 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 Pursuant 28 U.S.C. 1332(a), a district court has jurisdiction over an action between diverse parties, "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs." See 28 U.S.C. 1332(a).1 Here, in support of the jurisdictional amount, defendant simply states "the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs." (See Not. of Removal 4.) Defendant thus appears to rely wholly on the allegations of the FAC. The FAC, while alleging that plaintiffs are entitled to both economic and non-economic damages "according to proof," as well as "attorneys' fees" (see FAC, Prayer for Relief, 1-3), includes no allegations from which it can be reasonably inferred that the damages exceed the sum of $75,000. As a consequence, defendant has failed 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, no later than October 15, 2010, defendant shall show cause in writing why the action should not be remanded. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 24, 2010 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge 1 Defendant has adequately alleged that the parties are diverse. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?