Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00486/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00486-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Case No. C-05-486-JF

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND AND DEFERRING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS

(JFLC2)

**E-Filed 5/20/05**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TIMOTHY J. WALTON,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

PLASMANET, INC., et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C-05-486-JF

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO REMAND AND

DEFERRING DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS

Plaintiff moves to remand the instant matter to the Santa Clara Superior Court. 

Defendants oppose remand and move for dismissal or, in the alternative, for change of venue. 

The Court has considered the moving and opposing papers as well as the oral arguments

presented at the hearing on May 13, 2005. 

The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for remand. This Court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction unless the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

As the removing parties, Defendants have the burden of proving by a preponderence of the

evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. See Sanchez v.

Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). Defendants have failed to meet

Case 5:05-cv-00486-JF Document 35 Filed 05/20/05 Page 1 of 3
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

Case No. C-05-486-JF

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND AND DEFERRING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS

(JFLC2)

this burden. Moreover, Plaintiff has stipulated on the record that the amount in controversy does

not exceed $75,000 and that he does not and will not seek damages in excess of that amount.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions will be denied. Plaintiff’s complaint reasonably may be

read to allege claims that might result in liability in excess of $75,000. The Court’s ruling

expressly is based upon Plaintiff’s judicial admission that his damages will never exceed 75,000. 

It is unfortunate that the combative tone of certain communications between counsel led to a

situation which required judicial involvement. 

In light of its ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for remand, the Court will not address

Defendants’ motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 5/20/05

/s/ electronic signature authorized 

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-00486-JF Document 35 Filed 05/20/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Case No. C-05-486-JF

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND AND DEFERRING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS

(JFLC2)

Copies of Order served on:

Mark E. Burton , Jr olasov@hershlaw.com

Mitchell N. Reinis mreinis@silverfreedman.com, clebrane@silverfreedman.com

Case 5:05-cv-00486-JF Document 35 Filed 05/20/05 Page 3 of 3