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
JASON E. McMURRAY,
Plaintiff,
v.
MERCK & CO., INC., et al.,
Defendants
/
No. C-07-1007 MMC
ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD
NOT BE REMANDED
Before the Court is defendant Merck & Co., Inc.’s Notice of Removal, filed February
16, 2007, in which defendant asserts the federal district court has diversity jurisdiction
under 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,
567 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding defendant in removed action “bears the burden of actually
Case 3:07-cv-01007-MMC Document 5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 1 of 2
McMurray v. Merck & Co., Inc.,
Doc. 5
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
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 March 9, 2007, why the instant action should not be remanded for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff m