Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00036/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00036-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company
Defendant
Taisei Construction Corporation
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

TAISEI CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant

 /

No. 07-0036 MMC

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD

NOT BE REMANDED 

Before the Court is defendant’s Notice of Removal, filed January 4, 2007, in which

notice defendant asserts the federal district court has diversity jurisdiction over the abovetitled action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

In its notice of removal, defendant alleges sufficient facts to support a finding that

the parties are of diverse citizenship. Defendant, however, has failed to allege sufficient

facts to support a finding that the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000. 

Defendant first asserts the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 because plaintiff seeks

damages and attorney’s fees in connection with a “claim for policy benefits,” (see Notice of

Removal ¶ 6); neither the initial complaint nor the amended complaint includes any facts to

indicate the nature of the underlying claim or any other type of allegation from which the

Court can conclude that plaintiff’s claim for damages and fees exceeds the sum of $75,000. 

Case 3:07-cv-00036-MMC Document 11 Filed 01/25/07 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

Defendant next asserts that because plaintiff declined to stipulate the amount in

controversy is less than $75,000, plaintiff necessarily agrees the amount in controversy

exceeds $75,000. Plaintiff declined to sign the proposed stipulation for the stated reason

that “it was premature for [plaintiff] to state whether or not plaintiff will be seeking damages

in excess of $75,000,” (see Curry Decl., filed January 4, 2007, Ex. D), and thus has not

admitted the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Accordingly, no later than February 9, 2007, defendant shall show cause in writing

why the action should not be remanded. Plaintiff, no later than February 16, 2007, may file

a reply to defendant’s response to this Order.

As of February 16, 2007, the Court will take the matter under submission.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00036-MMC Document 11 Filed 01/25/07 Page 2 of 2