Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04836/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04836-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

ROBERT DIAZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

VALERO OIL REFINERY, BROCK

SCAFFOLDING COMPANY,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-4836 CRB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff filed a complaint in state court alleging several causes of action borne out of

a fall he endured from scaffolding which resulted in personal injury. Now pending before

the Court is defendants’ Notice of Removal based on diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §

1441(b)

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-04836-CRB Document 6 Filed 12/08/05 Page 1 of 2
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\4836\oscremovalaction.wpd 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. “Where doubt regarding the right to removal

exists, a case should be remanded to state court.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins.

Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003).

The Court is not satisfied that the amount in controversy has been met by a

preponderance of the evidence. In fact, defendant merely alleges that the matter in

controversy exceeds $75,000 without providing additional evidence to support that assertion. 

In addition, the Complaint itself only asserts that the action exceeds $25,000. Such assertion,

without more, is inadequate.

Defendant has failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy by a

preponderance of the evidence. Defendant is hereby instructed to file a submission

demonstrating that the amount in controversy is met. If defendant fails to make its

submission by December 16, 2005, or the submission fails to meet the proper burden, the

Court will remand the matter to state court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 8, 2005 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:05-cv-04836-CRB Document 6 Filed 12/08/05 Page 2 of 2