Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04087/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04087-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

AZADPOUR,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. ET AL,

Defendant. /

No. C05-04087 MJJ

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On January 30, 2006 the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion to remand this

action to state court. The Court determined that it had subject matter jurisdiction based upon

Plaintiff’s employment benefits claims pursuant to ERISA. Subsequently, Plaintiff voluntarily

withdrew all of his employment benefits claims. Accordingly, it does not appear that the Court has

jurisdiction over the instant matter. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:05-cv-04087-MJJ Document 104 Filed 05/03/06 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

2

If at any time the court determines that it is without subject matter jurisdiction, the action

shall be remanded to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The party seeking removal bears the burden

of showing the propriety of removal. Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir.

1988). There is a strong presumption against the assumption of removal jurisdiction by federal

courts. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, federal jurisdiction

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

Accordingly, Defendants are hereby ORDERED to show cause, in three pages or less, by

May 9, 2006, why this case should not be remanded to state court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2006 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04087-MJJ Document 104 Filed 05/03/06 Page 2 of 2