Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02030/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02030-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GKA ENTERPRISES, INC.; RAILWAY

TRANSPORT LEASING, INC.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

CONAGRA FOODS, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C05-02030 MJJ

ORDER VACATING HEARING AND

ORDERING PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE

Pending before the Court is Defendant Conagra Foods, Inc.’s “Motion for Order Striking

Demand for Jury Trial Pursuant to FRCP 81(c),” filed on October 7, 2005, and set for oral argument on

November 15, 2005. (Doc. #16.) Plaintiffs, however, failed to file an Opposition or a Notice of

Nonopposition, as required by Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7-3(a), (b). Consequently, the Court orders

Plaintiffsto show good cause as to why they failed to respond to Defendant's Motion and why the Court

should consider any tardy filing. Plaintiffs shall file a brief, not exceeding 5 pages by November 17,

2005, addressing these issues. Plaintiffs' failure to respond to this Order shall result in the imposition

of sanctions, including granting the Defendant's Motion. Further, the Court VACATES the hearing set

for November 15, 2005. 

Additionally, upon review of Defendant's Notice of Removal and Plaintiffs' Complaint, it does

not appear that Plaintiffs have alleged an amount in controversy. As the removing party, Defendant

bears the burden of establishing that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists. Toumajian v. Frailey,

135 F.3d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1998). When it is not facially evidence from the complaint that the amount

Case 3:05-cv-02030-MJJ Document 19 Filed 11/14/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

in controversy exceeds $75,000, the removing party must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that

the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional requirement set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See

Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the

Court will require Defendant to show cause in writing, supported by appropriate evidence, see id., that

the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Defendants shall file a brief, not exceeding 10 pages in

length, by November 23, 2005, addressing this issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/10/2005 /S/ 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02030-MJJ Document 19 Filed 11/14/05 Page 2 of 2