Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01007/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01007-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

JASON E. McMURRAY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MERCK & CO., INC., et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-07-1007 MMC

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD

NOT BE REMANDED 

Before the Court is defendant Merck & Co., Inc.’s Notice of Removal, filed February

16, 2007, in which defendant asserts the federal district court has diversity jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In the complaint, plaintiff does not seek any particular amount

of damages.

A federal district court has jurisdiction over removed actions only if such court would

have had original jurisdiction over the action had it originally been filed therein. See

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The instant action contains no federal claims. Under such

circumstances, the federal district court has subject-matter jurisdiction only if the action is

between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

Defendant’s notice of removal asserts that the amount in controversy exceeds

$75,000, but fails to submit evidence to support that assertion. As a consequence,

defendant has failed to establish diversity jurisdiction. See Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564,

567 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding defendant in removed action “bears the burden of actually

Case 3:07-cv-01007-MMC Document 5 Filed 02/22/07 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

proving the facts to support jurisdiction, including the jurisdictional amount.”)

Accordingly, defendant is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing, filed and

served no later than March 9, 2007, why the instant action should not be remanded for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff may file a reply to defendant’s response to the order

to show cause no later than March 23, 2007. The matter will stand submitted on that date,

and will be decided without a hearing, unless the Court determines, after reviewing the

parties’ submissions, that a hearing is necessary. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01007-MMC Document 5 Filed 02/22/07 Page 2 of 2