Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01711/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01711-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John McCormick
Plaintiff
Penn Treaty Network America Insurance Company
Defendant

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

JOHN McCORMICK, guardian ad litem for

BARBARA McCORMICK,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PENN TREATY NETWORK AMERICA

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant /

No. C-07-1711 MMC

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD

NOT BE REMANDED 

Before the Court is defendant Penn Treaty Network America Insurance Company’s 

Notice of Removal, filed March 26, 2007, in which defendant asserts the federal district

court has diversity jurisdiction over the instant action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In

the complaint, plaintiff does not seek any particular amount of damages.

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

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. As a consequence,

defendant has failed to establish diversity jurisdiction. See Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564,

Case 3:07-cv-01711-MMC Document 5 Filed 03/28/07 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

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 April 6, 2007, 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 April 20, 2007. 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: March 28, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01711-MMC Document 5 Filed 03/28/07 Page 2 of 2