Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03602/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03602-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
GMC
Defendant
General Motors Corporation
Defendant
James Panigada
Plaintiff

Document Text:

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES PANIGADA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

GMC, aka GENERAL MOTORS

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-3602 CRB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff filed a complaint in state court alleging a products liability cause of action

against the defendant whereby a truck manufactured by the defendant backed into plaintiff,

resulting in personal injury. In his complaint, plaintiff prays for compensatory damages

“according to proof.” Now pending before the Court is defendant GMC’s Notice of

Removal based on diversity jurisdiction.

A district court may sua sponte raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. See Galt

G/S v. Hapag-Lloyd AG, 60 F.3d 1370, 1373 (9th Cir. 1995). As the party invoking the

court’s diversity jurisdiction, a removing defendant bears the burden of establishing by a

preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. See

Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). If it is unclear

from the complaint what amount of damages plaintiff seeks, “the defendant bears the burden

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

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2005\3602\oscremovalaction.wpd 2

372 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that the removing defendant needs to “provide

evidence establishing that it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy exceeds

that amount.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). A defendant must set forth in the

removal petition itself the underlying facts supporting its assertion that the amount in

controversy is met. See Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. “Where doubt regarding the right to removal

exists, a case should be remanded to state court.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins.

Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003).

The Court is not satisfied that defendant established that the amount in controversy is

met by a preponderance of the evidence. In fact, defendant merely alleges that the matter in

controversy exceeds $75,000 without providing additional evidence to support that assertion. 

In addition, the Complaint itself only asserts that the action exceeds $25,000. Such assertion

is inadequate.

//

//

In this matter, defendant has failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in

controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. Defendant is hereby instructed to file a

submission demonstrating that the amount in controversy is met. If defendant fails to make

its submission by September 23, 2005, or the submission fails to meet the proper burden, the

Court will remand the matter to state court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2005 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT