Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01258/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01258-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALMA MAGANA,

Defendant. /

No. C 10-1258 CRB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

In July 2009, Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action against Defendant in

California Superior Court. Plaintiff alleges Defendant has failed to “quit and deliver up

possession” of a premises owned by Plaintiff. Now before the Court is Defendant’s Notice

of Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (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 that the

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 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 damage the

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). A defendant must set forth in the removal petition itself the underlying facts

Case 3:10-cv-01258-CRB Document 10 Filed 05/03/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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\2010\1258\Order to Show Cause re jurisdiction.wpd 2

supporting its assertion that the amount in controversy is met. See id. “Federal jurisdiction

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

In this case, it is not clear from the face of the complaint what amount of damages

Plaintiff seeks. Defendant was therefore required to set forth facts in her removal petition

that support a finding that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Far from providing

such facts, Defendant failed even to allege in her notice of removal that the jurisdictional

amount has been met. As a result, this Court cannot conclude that the amount in controversy

requirement for diversity jurisdiction has been met.

Accordingly, Defendant is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action

should not be remanded to state court. Defendant shall file her written response on or before

May 7, 2010. Plaintiff’s reply, if any, shall be filed by May 14, 2010. The Court shall advise

the parties if oral argument is necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2010 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-01258-CRB Document 10 Filed 05/03/10 Page 2 of 2