Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02428/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02428-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

GLENNA LEFLORE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BOLLINGER INDUSTRIES, et al.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-02428 CRB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff filed a complaint in state court alleging personal injuries caused by products

manufactured and sold by defendants. Now pending before the Court is defendants’ Notice

of Removal based on diversity jurisdiction.

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., 

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

Case 3:05-cv-02428-CRB Document 3 Filed 06/17/05 Page 1 of 3
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\2428\OSC.wpd 2

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. “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if

there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Id.

In Valdez, for example, the defendant removed the plaintiff’s state tort-law action on

diversity grounds. The removal petition stated merely that “‘upon information and belief, [it]

submits that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00.’” As the plaintiff did not move

to remand, the district court never addressed whether the amount-in-controversy requirement

was satisfied. The district court granted the defendant summary judgment on the merits and

the plaintiff appealed. On appeal the Ninth Circuit sua sponte determined that it could not

reach the merits of the appeal because it was unable to satisfy itself that the court had subject

matter jurisdiction. Id. at 1117. The court concluded that the defendant’s statement that

upon information and belief the amount in controversy was met “hardly constitutes proof ‘by

a preponderance of the evidence.’” Id. Accordingly, the court remanded the action to the

district court for a determination of whether the amount in controversy is sufficient to confer

removal jurisdiction. Id. at 1118.

The Court is not satisfied that defendant has proved that the amount in controversy is

met. As in Valdez, defendants claim that the amount in controversy is met based only upon

information and belief. The attached complaint seeks general damages and medical

expenses, and pleads only that damages exceed $25,000.

Therefore, defendant is hereby ORDERED to show cause why this case should not be

remanded. On or before July 1, 2005 defendant shall file a submission demonstrating by a

preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy is met. If defendant fails to

file a brief by that time, the Court will remand the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2005

 /s/ 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02428-CRB Document 3 Filed 06/17/05 Page 2 of 3
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\2428\OSC.wpd 3

Case 3:05-cv-02428-CRB Document 3 Filed 06/17/05 Page 3 of 3