Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02308/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02308-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance 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

CROWN PAPER LIQUIDATING TRUST,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP,

INC., et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-07-2308 MMC

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY CLAIMS AGAINST

DEFENDANT RICHARD E. COWAN

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS

MISJOINED; CONTINUING HEARING ON

REMOVING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS

On April 27, 2007, defendants American International Group, Inc., National Union

Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., and AIG Domestic Claims, Inc. removed the

above-titled action, asserting the district court has diversity jurisdiction over the action. 

With respect to defendant Richard E. Cowan (“Cowan”), removing defendants concede that

he is a citizen of the same state as plaintiff, but assert Cowan has been fraudulently joined

as a party hereto.

By order filed May 14, 2007, the Court directed removing defendants to show cause,

no later than May 24, 2007, why the action should not be remanded, specifically, to

“demonstrate it is ‘obvious according to the settled rules of the state’ that plaintiff cannot

state a negligent misrepresentation claim against Cowan.” (See Order, filed May 14, 2007,

at 2:5-6 (quoting McCabe v. General Foods Corp., 811 F. 2d 1336, 1339 (9th Cir. 1987). 

In said order, the Court also afforded plaintiff the opportunity to file, no later than May 31,

Case 3:07-cv-02308-MMC Document 24 Filed 06/08/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2007, a reply to defendant’s response.

On May 24, 2007, removing defendants filed a timely response to the Court’s order

to show cause, setting forth the basis for their assertion that Cowan is not properly joined

as a party herein, as well as asserting for the first time that the Court has jurisdiction over

the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). To date, plaintiff has not filed a reply.

Accordingly, plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing and no later

than June 22, 2007, why its claims against Cowan should not be dismissed on the ground

said defendant is not properly joined as a party; further, plaintiff shall set forth its response

to removing defendants’ reliance on § 1334(b).

Finally, because the issue of whether the Court has jurisdiction over the complaint

must be determined before the Court can consider the merits of plaintiff’s complaint, the

Court hereby CONTINUES from June 22, 2007 to July 6, 2007, at 9:00 a.m., the hearing on

removing defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02308-MMC Document 24 Filed 06/08/07 Page 2 of 2