Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01737/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01737-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL DAYA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ECHOSTAR SATELLITE CORPORATION

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-1737 CRB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff filed this action is state court alleging state law causes of action for disability

employment discrimination. He alleges that defendants unlawfully terminated his

employment in August 2004. Now pending before the Court is defendant Home Depot’s

Notice of Removal based on diversity jurisdiction.

A district court may sua sponte raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. See Galt

G/S v. Hapag-Lloyd AG, 60 F.3d 1370, 1373 (9th Cir. 1995). As the party invoking the

court’s diversity jurisdiction, a removing defendant bears the burden of establishing by a

preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. See

Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). If it is unclear

from the complaint what amount of damages plaintiff seeks, “the defendant bears the burden

of actually proving the facts to support jurisdiction, including the jurisdictional amount.” 

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 

Case 3:05-cv-01737-CRB Document 13 Filed 05/12/05 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

372 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that the removing defendant needs to “provide

evidence establishing that it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy exceeds

that amount.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). A defendant must set forth in the

removal petition itself the underlying facts supporting its assertion that the amount in

controversy is met. See Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if

there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Id.

In Valdez, for example, the defendant removed the plaintiff’s state tort-law action on

diversity grounds. The removal petition stated merely that “‘upon information and belief, [it]

submits that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00.’” As the plaintiff did not move

to remand, the district court never addressed whether the amount-in-controversy requirement

was satisfied. The district court granted the defendant summary judgment on the merits and

the plaintiff appealed. On appeal the Ninth Circuit sua sponte determined that it could not

reach the merits of the appeal because it was unable to satisfy itself that the court had subject

matter jurisdiction. Id. at 1117. The court concluded that the defendant’s statement that

upon information and belief the amount in controversy was met “hardly constitutes proof ‘by

a preponderance of the evidence.’” Id. Accordingly, the court remanded the action to the

district court for a determination of whether the amount in controversy is sufficient to confer

removal jurisdiction. Id. at 1118.

The Court is not satisfied that defendants have proved that the amount in controversy

is met. The only “evidence” identified by defendants is that “[a]ccording to a reasonable

reading of the Complaint, Plaintiff’s demand for damages is well in excess of $75,000.” This

“evidence” is tantamount to the defendant’s “upon information and belief” statement in

Valdez, and “hardly constitutes proof ‘by a preponderance of the evidence.’” 

In addition, defendants contend that all defendants are citizens of Colorado and thus

the parties are diverse. One defendant, however, is the “Dish Network California Service

Corporation,” a corporation registered to do business in California. While the headquarters

for this corporation may be in Colorado, defendants do not explain how a corporation with

“California” in its name does not qualify as a California citizen for diversity jurisdiction

Case 3:05-cv-01737-CRB Document 13 Filed 05/12/05 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

G:\CRBALL\2005\1737\ordertoshowcause.wpd 3

purposes under the “place of operations” test. See Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better

Environment, 236 F.3d 495, 500 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[W]here a majority of a corporation’s

business activity takes place in one state, that state is the corporation’s principal place of

business, even if the headquarters are located in a different state.”). 

Accordingly, defendants are hereby ordered to show cause why this action should not

be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In particular, on or before May 19, 2005,

defendants shall file their evidence demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that

the amount in controversy is met and that all defendants, served and unserved, are diverse. 

The Court will notify the parties if oral argument or a submission from plaintiff is required.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12 , 2005 /s/ 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-01737-CRB Document 13 Filed 05/12/05 Page 3 of 3