Credit Management Association of California v. American Express Company et al
Filing
8
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew.It is ORDERED that Defendant AEC show cause why this case is removable to federal district court based on diversity of citizenship. Defendant AEChas no later than August 15, 2013, to respond, in writing, demonstrating why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Thematter will stand submitted upon the filing of the response or on the date the response is due, whichever occurs first. SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. (jre)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 Credit Managers Association
of California, DBA Credit
12 Managers Association,
Assignee for the Benefit of
13 Creditors of Pandigital,
Inc.,
14
Plaintiff,
15
v.
16 American Express Co.; and
Does 1 through 10,
17 inclusive,
18
19
20
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CV 13-5342 RSWL (MRWx)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION
The Court is in receipt of Defendant American
21 Express Company’s (“AEC”) Notice of Removal, which
22 alleges diversity jurisdiction as the ground for
23 removing this Action to federal court [1].
24
The removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, allows a
25 defendant to remove a case originally filed in state
26 court when the case presents a federal question or is
27 an action between citizens of different states and
28 involves an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000.
1
1 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), (b).
See also 28 U.S.C. §§
2 1331, 1332(a).
3
The Ninth Circuit “strictly construe[s] the removal
4 statute against removal jurisdiction,” and “[f]ederal
5 jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as
6 to the right of removal in the first instance.”
Gaus
7 v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)
8 (citing Boggs v. Lewis, 863 F.2d 662, 663 (9th Cir.
9 1988), Takeda v. Northwestern Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 765
10 F.2d 815, 818 (9th Cir. 1985), and Libhart v. Santa
11 Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979)).
12 “The ‘strong presumption’ against removal jurisdiction
13 means that the defendant always has the burden of
14 establishing that removal is proper.”
Id. (citing
15 Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709,
16 712 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1990), and Emich v. Touche Ross &
17 Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988)).
18
“[J]urisdiction founded on [diversity] requires
19 that parties be in complete diversity and the amount in
20 controversy exceed $75,000.”
Matheson v. Progressive
21 Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir.
22 2003).
23
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
As the party invoking federal jurisdiction in this
24 case, Defendant AEC has the burden of establishing the
25 existence of subject matter jurisdiction.
See Kokkonen
26 v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); In
27 re Ford Motor Co., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001);
28 Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir. 1996).
2
1 The Notice of Removal alleges that removal is proper
2 based on diversity jurisdiction.
Here, the Complaint
3 alleges that the amount in controversy is $74,000,
4 which is less than what is required for establishing
5 diversity jurisdiction.
6
See Compl. ¶ 6.
Therefore, it is ORDERED that Defendant AEC show
7 cause why this case is removable to federal district
8 court based on diversity of citizenship.
Defendant AEC
9 has no later than August 15, 2013, to respond, in
10 writing, demonstrating why this case should not be
11 remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The
12 matter will stand submitted upon the filing of the
13 response or on the date the response is due, whichever
14 occurs first.
15
16 IT IS SO ORDERED.
17 DATED: August 5, 2013
18
19
20
HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW
Senior, U.S. District Court Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
]]>
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?
