Cottage Health System et al v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America et al
Filing
11
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner remanding case to Santa Barbara Superior Court, Anacapa, Case number 1382220. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. Certified copies of the docket sheet and Order to Remand sent to State Court (see document for further details). (Attachments: # 1 Transmittal Letter) (rne)
<![CDATA[
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 11-07430-RGK (FMOx)
Title
COTTAGE HEALTH SYSTEM v. TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO.
Present: The
Honorable
Date
September 30, 2011
R. GARY KLAUSNER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Sharon L. Williams
Not Reported
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present
Not Present
Proceedings:
(IN CHAMBERS) Order Remanding Action to State Court
On August 5, 2011, Cottage Health System and Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital (“Plaintiffs”),
filed suit against the Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America (“Defendant”). In their
Complaint, Plaintiffs asserts state claims for breach of contract and tortious interference.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, district courts shall have original jurisdiction over any civil action
in which the parties are citizens of different states and the action involves an amount in controversy that
exceeds $75,000. After a plaintiff files a case in state court, the defendant attempting to remove the case
to federal court bears the burden of proving the amount in controversy requirement has been met.
Lowdermilk v. United States Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998 (9th Cir. 2007). If the complaint does
not allege the amount in controversy, the removing defendant must supply this jurisdictional fact in the
Notice of Removal. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566-567 (9th Cir. 1992). Defendant has failed to
make this requisite showing. In its notice of removal Defendant argues that Plaintiffs damages “more
likely than not” exceed the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000. Such assumptions may not serve as the
basis for the amount in controversy requirement in order to satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
In light of the foregoing, the Court hereby remands the action to state court for all further
proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (10/08)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
slw
Page 1 of 1
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
