Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00295/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00295-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

PRITI MAJALI,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WALGREEN CO.,

Defendant /

No. C-07-0295 MMC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Before the Court is defendant Walgreen Co.’s notice of removal, filed January 17,

2007, wherein defendant contends the Court has diversity jurisdiction over the above-titled

action. In the complaint, plaintiff Priti Majali does not seek any particular amount of

damages.

A federal district court has jurisdiction over removed actions only if such court would

have had original jurisdiction over the action had it originally been filed therein. See

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The instant action contains no federal claims. Under such

circumstances, the federal district court has subject-matter jurisdiction only if the action is

between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

Defendant’s notice of removal asserts that the amount in controversy exceeds

$75,000, but fails to submit evidence to support that assertion. Although defendant

Case 3:07-cv-00295-MMC Document 4 Filed 01/22/07 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

contends that damage awards and attorneys’ fees in similar actions routinely exceed the

$75,000 jurisdictional threshold, it fails to compare the facts alleged in the instant action to

any case in which such damages or fees were awarded, and fails to submit any evidence

suggesting that such awards are routine. As a consequence, defendant has failed to

establish diversity jurisdiction. 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, filed and

served no later than February 9, 2007, why the instant action should not be remanded for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff may file a reply to defendant’s response to the

order to show cause no later than February 23, 2007. The matter will stand submitted on

that date, and will be decided without a hearing, unless the Court determines, after

reviewing the parties’ submissions, that a hearing is necessary. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00295-MMC Document 4 Filed 01/22/07 Page 2 of 2