Summary
The United States District Court for the Central District of California issued an order to show cause why the action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court questioned whether the removing defendant had established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 and ordered written responses within fourteen days.
Holdings
- A removing defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 when the court questions the jurisdictional allegations; the Notice of Removal did not presently satisfy that burden.
- The district court may sua sponte require the parties to address subject matter jurisdiction and may remand if the removing defendant fails to establish jurisdiction.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Notice of Removal adequately established subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), particularly whether the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
- Whether the parties should be ordered to show cause why the action should not 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…