Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00010/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00010-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cross Country Travcorps, Inc
Defendant
Belinda Segel
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

BELINDA SEGEL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CROSS COUNTRY TRAVCORPS, INC.,

Defendant /

No. 06-0010 MMC

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE 

Before the Court is defendant’s response to the Court’s January 11, 2006 Order to

Show Cause, by which the Court directed defendant to show cause why the above-titled

action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, in particular, for failure

to show the requisite amount in controversy. Plaintiff has not filed a reply to defendant’s

response, although afforded the opportunity to do so. 

In her complaint, plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that defendant breached its contract and

fraudulently induced plaintiff to move to California for purposes of obtaining employment

with defendant. Plaintiff seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Defendant offers evidence that plaintiff has calculated her wage loss to be over

$27,000. (See Kaufman Decl. Ex. A.) Plaintiff seeks recovery under, inter alia, section 972

of the California Labor Code, which provides for “double damages.” See Cal. Lab. Code §

972. Thus, defendant has shown that at least $54,000 is in controversy with respect to

Case 3:06-cv-00010-MMC Document 9 Filed 02/06/06 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

plaintiff’s claim for compensatory economic damages. Consequently, to establish diversity

jurisdiction, defendant must show the amount in controversy with respect to plaintiff’s

claims for non-economic damages and punitive damages exceed $21,000. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331(a) (providing district court has jurisdiction over civil action between diverse citizens

where amount in controversy exceeds $75,000).

Defendant offers evidence that plaintiff, prior to filing her complaint, demanded the

sum of $80,000 to settle the entire matter. (See Anenberg Decl. Ex. A.) “A settlement

letter is relevant evidence of the amount in controversy if it appears to reflect a reasonable

estimate of the plaintiff’s claim.” Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F. 3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Given plaintiff’s claim for economic damages in excess of $54,000, plaintiff’s failure to reply

to defendant’s response to the Order to Show Cause, and plaintiff’s demand letter, which

presumably reflects a demand for less than the amount plaintiff will seek if the case is tried,

defendant has made a sufficient showing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 

See, e.g., id. (holding where plaintiff demanded $100,000 to settle claim prior to filing suit

and, in moving to remand, “did not argue the demand was inflated and not an honest

assessment of damages” or offer other “contrary evidence,” demand letter was sufficient

evidence to support removal on diversity grounds).

Accordingly, the order to show cause is hereby DISCHARGED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00010-MMC Document 9 Filed 02/06/06 Page 2 of 2