Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04161/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04161-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LINDA GATSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-04161-JST 

ORDER ON RESPONSE TO ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE

Re: ECF No. 17

On January 8, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause “why this action should not 

be dismissed for want of federal jurisdiction” by January 22, 2015. ECF No. 16. The Court noted that 

the Complaint appeared to seek only “a few thousand dollars” resulting from Defendant’s alleged 

breach of contract and therefore may not satisfy the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement of 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(a). Id. The Court vacated all future dates in the matter pending further order by the 

Court. Id.

Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause on January 22, 2015. ECF No. 17. 

Plaintiff acknowledges that Defendant is only alleged to have “taken $16,527.34 in monies from 

Plaintiff in breach of contract.” Id. at 2. But Plaintiff’s response also states that Plaintiff seeks in 

excess of $100,000 for “damages resulting from the impact on Plaintiff’s credit as a result of 

Defendant holding Plaintiff in default, and reporting such default to credit reporting agencies, in 

breach of the contract.” Id. (citing Complaint, ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 22, 28). Plaintiff contends that 

such damages are recoverable under California law, under which the measure of damages is “the 

amount which will compensate the party aggrieved for all the detriment proximately caused

thereby, or which, in the ordinary course of things, would be likely to result therefrom.” Cal. Civ. 

Code § 3300. Plaintiff further alleges that attorneys’ fees are recoverable under the terms of the 

contract. ECF No. 17 at 3. 

Case 3:14-cv-04161-JST Document 18 Filed 01/27/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

“The rule governing dismissal for want of jurisdiction in cases brought in federal court is 

that, unless the law gives a different rule, the sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is 

apparently made in good faith. It must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less 

than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal.” Pachinger v. MGM Grand Hotel-Las Vegas, 

Inc., 802 F.2d 362, 363-64 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab 

Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288–89 (1938)). Given Plaintiff’s response, it does not appear to a legal certainty 

that the claim is for less than $75,000. Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has demonstrated 

that § 1332(a)’s amount in controversy requirement is met. 

The Court now sets a case management conference for February 11, 2015 at 2:00 P.M. The 

parties do not need to submit a new joint case management statement, unless they wish to amend the 

statement filed at ECF No. 9, in which case their amended statement must be filed by February 4, 

2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04161-JST Document 18 Filed 01/27/15 Page 2 of 2