Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03820/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03820-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANDRA KAY CABRERA,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-3820 PJH

v. NOTICE AND ORDER

ARAMARK SM MANAGEMENT, INC.,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:

In connection with its preparation for and review of defendant’s motion for summary

judgment, to be heard on July 11, 2007, the court has determined that a preliminary and

unresolved issue exists with respect to the court’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction

over the instant action. Namely, it is unclear that the prerequisites for diversity jurisdiction

– as invoked by defendant in its Notice of Removal – have been satisfied, since neither

plaintiff’s original or amended complaints, nor the Notice of Removal, concretely set forth

the required amount in actual controversy. The court specifically notes that defendant’s

removal allegations, which state only that plaintiff’s damages “could” exceed $75,000,

appear insufficient to overcome plaintiff’s express allegation that damages exceed only

$25,000. Moreover, defendant’s removal allegations are inconsistent with its argument on

the merits of its motion that plaintiff has admitted no damages exist at all. 

In view of these observations, the parties are directed to review Valdez v. Allstate

Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2004), and the cases cited therein, in preparation for the

July 11 hearing, at which the parties will be instructed to address the relevant jurisdictional

issues. Defendant may present evidence at the hearing bearing on these issues, should it

Case 4:06-cv-03820-PJH Document 26 Filed 07/06/07 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

so desire. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-03820-PJH Document 26 Filed 07/06/07 Page 2 of 2