Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02217/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02217-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Curtisha Holden
Plaintiff
Target Corporation
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTISHA HOLDEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

TARGET CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-02217-JST 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

REGARDING DIVERSITY 

JURISDICTION

Re: ECF No. 1

Defendant Target Corporation is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case 

should not be remanded for want of subject matter jurisdiction.

Defendant removed this case from Alameda County Superior Court, contending this Court 

has federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Defendant asserts that “[t]he matter in 

controversy allegedly exceeds the sum on $75,000.00, exclusive of interest, attorney’s fees and 

costs.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 5. Plaintiff’s complaint only alleges that the amount of damages exceeds 

$25,000. See ECF No. 1-1, Ex. A at 3. Defendant, however, states that Plaintiff made a 

settlement demand in excess of $75,000. ECF No. 1 ¶ 10. 

As the removing party, Defendant bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction by a 

preponderance of the evidence. Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1040 (9th Cir. 2015). In a federal 

diversity action, a settlement demand may be relevant evidence as to the amount in controversy, 

but only if it reflects a reasonable estimate of the plaintiff's claim. Cohn v. PetSmart, Inc., 281 

F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court cannot conclude based on the Notice of Removal alone

that Defendant has carried its burden in establishing the amount in controversy. 

No later than Friday, June 17, 2016 at 5:00 p.m., Defendant must file a written response to 

this Order to Show Cause. The response shall set forth the bases for Defendant’s assertion for the 

amount in controversy, and shall include declarations or affidavits supporting any statements of 

Case 3:16-cv-02217-JST Document 11 Filed 06/10/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

fact, consistent with Civil Local Rule 7-5. Plaintiff may, but is not required to, file a written 

response to the Defendant’s response to this Order to Show Cause. Such response shall be due by 

Friday, June 24, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. Whether or not Plaintiff files a response, the matter will go 

under submission on June 24, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. 

If the Defendant does not file a written response, the Court will remand the case to the 

Alameda County Superior Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02217-JST Document 11 Filed 06/10/16 Page 2 of 2