Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02254/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02254-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)

---

PRIORITY SEND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL

Case No. EDCV 11-00741 VAP (OPx) Date: July 5, 2011 

Title: ANDREW HAAS v. EARNHARDT AVONDALE HYUNDAI, INC.; AN

ARIZONA CORPORATION; EARNHARDT MANAGEMENT COMPANY;

AN ARIZONA BUSINESS ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN; PAG AVONDALE

H1 LLC

===============================================================

PRESENT: HONORABLE VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Marva Dillard None Present

Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR

PLAINTIFFS:

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR

DEFENDANTS:

None None

PROCEEDINGS: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: AMOUNT IN

CONTROVERSY FOR DIVERSITY JURISDICTION (IN

CHAMBERS)

On May 10, 2011, Plaintiff Andrew Haas ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint alleging

negligence against Earnhardt Avondale Hyundai and Earnhardt Management

Company. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges the Court has jurisdiction based on diversity

between the parties. On June 17, 2011, Plaintiff amended his complaint ("First

Amended Complaint") adding PAG Avondale H1 LLC as a defendant ("Defendant"),

and dropping his claims against Earnhardt Avondale Hyundai and Earnhardt

Management Company. Plaintiff again asserts jurisdiction based on diversity.

MINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk ____md____

CIVIL -- GEN Page 1

Case 2:11-cv-02254-ROS Document 9 Filed 07/05/11 Page 1 of 2
EDCV 11-00741 VAP (OPx)

ANDREW HAAS v. EARNHARDT AVONDALE HYUNDAI, INC.; AN ARIZONA CORPORATION; EARNHARDT MANAGEMENT COMPANY; AN

ARIZONA BUSINESS ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN

MINUTE ORDER of June 15, 2011

The Court may exercise jurisdiction based on diversity between the parties. 

Diversity jurisdiction extends to "all civil actions where the matter in controversy

exceeds . . . $75,000 . . . and is between . . . [c]itizens of different States." 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332(a)(1). Upon review of the First Amended Complaint, however, the basis for

diversity jurisdiction in this case is unclear. Plaintiff has not set forth any factual

allegations demonstrating his claim exceeds the $75,000 statutory minimum

required for diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Pachinger v. MGM Grand

Hotel-Las Vegas, Inc., 802 F.2d 362, 363 (9th Cir. 1986) ("The amount in

controversy is normally determined from the face of the pleadings."). Thus, Plaintiff

has not established the Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

As the Complaint does not demonstrate a basis for the Court's jurisdiction, the

Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the action should not be

dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff's response is due no later than

July 18, 2011. Failure to respond will result in dismissal of Plaintiff's First Amended

Complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk ____md____

CIVIL -- GEN Page 2

Case 2:11-cv-02254-ROS Document 9 Filed 07/05/11 Page 2 of 2