Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08163/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08163-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jeffrey Thompson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-8163-PCT-JAT

ORDER

In a notice of removal, to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction, Defendant must

establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the

jurisdictional minimum. Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 376 (9th

Cir. 1997) (quoting St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 290 (1938))

(“Where the complaint does not demand a dollar amount, the removing defendant bears the

burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy

exceeds [$75,000].”). “[R]emoval ‘cannot be based simply upon conclusory allegations’

where the [complaint] is silent” as to the dollar amount of damages the plaintiff seeks.

Singer, 116 F.3d at 377 (citing Allen v. R&H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335 (5th Cir.

1995)).

In this case, the notice of removal contains a conclusory allegation that the amount

in controversy exceeds $75,000. See also Valdez v. Allstate, 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir.

2004) (“a conclusory allegation neither overcomes the strong presumption against removal

Case 3:07-cv-08163-JAT Document 8 Filed 01/08/08 Page 1 of 2
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 -

jurisdiction, nor satisfies the defendant’s burden of setting forth, in the removal petition

itself, the underlying facts supporting its assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds the

applicable dollar value.”) (internal quotations omitted)). Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that on February 4, 2008, at 10:15 a.m., Defendant shall appear and

show cause why this case should not be remanded to state court.

DATED this 8th day of January, 2008.

Case 3:07-cv-08163-JAT Document 8 Filed 01/08/08 Page 2 of 2