Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00907/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00907-0/pdf.json

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

---

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 07cv907 BTM(NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHANA SCOTT-DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv907 BTM(NLS)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION

v.

MEDRP INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND

DOES 1-25, INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

On May 22, 2007, the Court issued an order to show cause (“OSC”) why this case

should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As explained in the Court’s

order, Plaintiff cites diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as the basis for this Court’s

jurisdiction. However, according to the Complaint, the damages resulting from the breach

of contract are in the amount of $20,150.00. The Court has original jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1332(a) when there is diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy

exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Plaintiff, as the party seeking to invoke the

Court’s jurisdiction, bears the burden of proving diversity jurisdiction. Kohler v. Inter-Tel

Technologies, 244 F.3d 1167, 1170 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2001). 

In her response to the OSC, Plaintiff claims that “[t]he value of the consequences to

plaintiff, or the defendant for that matter, which may result from this litigation may well exceed

Case 3:07-cv-00907-BTM-NLS Document 6 Filed 06/15/07 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 07cv907 BTM(NLS)

$75,000.00 because plaintiff has both an on-going desire for such employment in Southern

California for herself and her corporation, and defendant, so far as is known, continues to

seek placement of independent contract nurses in Southern California hospitals.” However,

Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants is for the breach of a specific contract for employment

of Plaintiff from July 16, 2006 through October 14, 2006. The Complaint states that

$20,150.00 is the amount Plaintiff could have expected to earn during this period if she

worked three twelve-hour shifts per week. Vague assertions that the breach of contract

could have consequences beyond the contractual period are insufficient to satisfy Plaintiff’s

burden of proof.

Plaintiff requests that the Court defer ruling on the OSC for two to four weeks “so

plaintiff might find an additional basis for Federal Court jurisdiction in this matter.” The Court

declines to do so. Plaintiff has made no showing that a potential basis for federal jurisdiction

exists. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 15, 2007

Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00907-BTM-NLS Document 6 Filed 06/15/07 Page 2 of 2