Summary
The United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered the parties to show cause why the action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court questioned whether Ford Motor Company had demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 for diversity jurisdiction and directed the parties to respond within fourteen days.
Holdings
- The Notice of Removal did not presently demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
- The court did not yet enter a final remand; instead, it ordered the parties to show cause within fourteen days why the action should not be remanded and invited evidence addressing the facial and factual sufficiency of Defendant's jurisdictional showing.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Notice of Removal adequately demonstrated that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
- Whether the action should be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (6)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)(followed)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n. 3 (2006)(followed)
- Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999)(followed)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 88-89 (2014)(followed)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
- Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2014)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…