Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02023/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02023-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander

---

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

- 1 - 06CV2023

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD R. BAMBERGER, an individual,

and PHILLIP S. LADMAN, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 06cv2023 DMS (NLS)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER

vs. JURISDICTION

JASON BLUM, an individual, and

INTERRA-VISION DEVELOPMENT, LLC,

and DOES 1-50, inclusive,

Defendants.

On August 29, 2006, Plaintiffs initiated an action in California Superior Court against Jason

Blum (“Blum”), Interra-Vision Development, LLC (“Interra”), and unnamed Doe Defendants. On

September 20, 2006, Defendants Blum and Interra filed a notice of removal with this Court. On

September 29, 2006, this Court issued an order directing Defendants to show cause why this action

should not be remanded to state court due to the lack of complete diversity of citizenship and the lack

of evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

On October 13, 2006, Defendants responded to the Court’s Order to show cause. Regarding

diversity, Defendants submit declarations indicating that both Blum and Interra are, and were at the

time of the filing of the Complaint, citizens of Illinois. The Response includes a copy of Interra’s

Articles of Organization showing that the company is organized under the laws of the State of Illinois.

Case 3:06-cv-02023-DMS-NLS Document 6 Filed 10/17/06 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 - 06CV2023

The supporting declaration indicates Interra has its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.

Regarding the amount in controversy, Defendants submit that the Complaint does not aver a specific

damages amount and thus consent to remand on that ground. Defendants reserve their right to remove

once the amount in controversy is known.

Based on the foregoing, this Court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the

controversy in question. Although there is complete diversity as Plaintiffs are citizens of California

and Defendants are citizens of Illinois, the jurisdictional amount has not been satisfied. Accordingly,

the Court orders that the case be dismissed and remanded to state court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 17, 2006

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

CC: Judge Stormes

all parties

Case 3:06-cv-02023-DMS-NLS Document 6 Filed 10/17/06 Page 2 of 2