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 CourtFor the Northern District of CaliforniaIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PRITI MAJALI,
Plaintiff,
v.
WALGREEN CO.,
Defendant
/
No. C-07-0295 MMC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Before the Court is defendant Walgreen Co.’s notice of removal, filed January 17,
2007, wherein defendant contends the Court has diversity jurisdiction over the above-titled
action. In the complaint, plaintiff Priti Majali 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. Although defendant
Case 3:07-cv-00295-MMC Document 4 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 1 of 2
Majali v. Walgreen Co.
Doc. 4
Dockets.Justia.com
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
contends that damage awards and attorneys’ fees in similar actions routinely exceed the
$75,000 jurisdictional threshold, it fails to compare the facts alleged in the instant action to
any case in which such damages or fees were awarded, and fails to submit any evidence
suggesting that such awards are routine. As a consequence, defendant has failed to
establish diversity jurisdiction. See Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992)
(holding defendant in removed action “bears the burden of actually proving the facts to
support jurisdiction, includin