Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-04101/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-04101-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract

---

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

MATTHEW MCCARTHY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant /

No. C-08-4101 MMC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Before the Court is defendant Hartford Casualty Insurance Company’s notice of

removal, filed August 27, 2008, wherein defendant contends the Court has diversity

jurisdiction over the above-titled action. In the complaint, plaintiff Matthew McCarthy seeks

$28,813.77 in damages for defendant’s alleged breach of the insurance contract at issue,

(see Compl. ¶ 12), as well as an unspecified amount of damages for his “great

inconvenience and financial loss” for having “been forced to live without an automobile,”

(see id. ¶ 16), an unspecified amount of damages for emotional distress, (see id. ¶ 17), and

an unspecified amount of punitive and exemplary damages, (see id. ¶ 18).

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

Case 3:08-cv-04101-MMC Document 5 Filed 08/29/08 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

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. To the extent defendant

may be suggesting that an award for the types of damages claimed by plaintiff would

exceed the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold, it fails to compare the facts alleged in the

instant action to any case in which such damages were awarded, and fails to submit any

evidence suggesting that such awards are routine. 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 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 September 12, 2008, 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 September 26, 2008. 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: August 29, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04101-MMC Document 5 Filed 08/29/08 Page 2 of 2