Holden v. Target Corporation

Filing 11

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING DIVERSITY JURISDICTION. Show Cause Response due by 6/17/2016. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on June 10, 2016. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CURTISHA HOLDEN,

Case No. 16-cv-02217-JST

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

TARGET CORPORATION,
Defendant.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
REGARDING DIVERSITY
JURISDICTION
Re: ECF No. 1

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Defendant Target Corporation is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case
should not be remanded for want of subject matter jurisdiction.
Defendant removed this case from Alameda County Superior Court, contending this Court

15

has federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Defendant asserts that “[t]he matter in

16

controversy allegedly exceeds the sum on $75,000.00, exclusive of interest, attorney’s fees and

17

costs.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 5. Plaintiff’s complaint only alleges that the amount of damages exceeds

18

$25,000. See ECF No. 1-1, Ex. A at 3. Defendant, however, states that Plaintiff made a

19

settlement demand in excess of $75,000. ECF No. 1 ¶ 10.

20

As the removing party, Defendant bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction by a

21

preponderance of the evidence. Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1040 (9th Cir. 2015). In a federal

22

diversity action, a settlement demand may be relevant evidence as to the amount in controversy,

23

but only if it reflects a reasonable estimate of the plaintiff's claim. Cohn v. PetSmart, Inc., 281

24

F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court cannot conclude based on the Notice of Removal alone

25

that Defendant has carried its burden in establishing the amount in controversy.

26

No later than Friday, June 17, 2016 at 5:00 p.m., Defendant must file a written response to

27

this Order to Show Cause. The response shall set forth the bases for Defendant’s assertion for the

28

amount in controversy, and shall include declarations or affidavits supporting any statements of

1

fact, consistent with Civil Local Rule 7-5. Plaintiff may, but is not required to, file a written

2

response to the Defendant’s response to this Order to Show Cause. Such response shall be due by

3

Friday, June 24, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. Whether or not Plaintiff files a response, the matter will go

4

under submission on June 24, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.

5
6
7
8
9
10

If the Defendant does not file a written response, the Court will remand the case to the
Alameda County Superior Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 10, 2016
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2