Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04965/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04965-0/pdf.json

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEY, L.P.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

INGENIX PHARMECEUTICAL SERVICES,

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-05-4965 MMC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE

SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR

LACK OF JURISDICTION

Defendants removed the instant action to federal court on December 1, 2005 on the

basis of diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff is alleged to be a limited partnership. (See Compl. ¶

1.) In order to remove the instant action on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, defendants

were required to allege in the notice of removal the citizenships of “all the partners of the

limited partnership.” See Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374

F.3d 1020 (11th Cir. 2004). In the instant action, defendants’ conclusory allegation that

they “are informed and believe” that plaintiff “is a limited partnership whose partners were

and are citizens of states other than states of which any served defendant was or is a

citizen,” (see Notice of Removal ¶ 8), is insufficient.

Additionally, defendants also must establish that the amount in controversy is

greater than $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); see also Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d

837, 839 (9th Cir. 2002). A notice of removal is deficient if it “only summarily allege[s] that
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

the amount in controversy exceed[s] $75,000, without alleging any underlying facts to

support [the] assertion.” See Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Defendants summary allegation that “[b]ased upon the allegations, claims, and prayer for

relief set forth in the Complaint, the amount in controversy in this matter, exclusive of

interest and costs, exceeds the sum of $75,000.00,” (see Notice of Removal ¶ 12), fails to

meet their burden of establishing that the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000.

Accordingly, defendants are hereby ordered to show cause in writing, no later than

January 6, 2006, why the instant action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. No later than January 20, 2006, plaintiff may file an opposition to defendant’s

response to the order to show cause; no later than January 27, 2006, defendants may file a

reply. The matter will be taken under submission at that time and decided without oral

argument, unless the Court determines, after reviewing the parties’ submissions, that

argument would assist the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2005 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge