CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 5:23-cv-00521-JLS-SHK Date: April 07, 2023 Title: Valley Forge Insurance Company v. Wesco Insurance Company Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

V.R. Vallery N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Plaintiff Valley Forge Insurance Company filed this action in Riverside County Superior Court on February 15, 2023, asserting claims for declaratory judgment, equitable contribution, and equitable subrogation. (See Compl., Doc 1-1.) Defendant Wesco Insurance Company (“Wesco”) removed to this Court on March 24, 2023, asserting diversity jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal (“NOR”), Doc. 1.) “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

(1994). As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, Wesco has the burden of establishing that this case lies within the Court’s limited jurisdiction. See

A federal court has diversity jurisdiction under

if the parties to the action are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

(a). In determining the citizenship of a corporation, “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State . . . by which it has been incorporated and of the State . . . where it has its principal place of business[.]”

§ 1332(c)(1). Here, Wesco asserts that Plaintiff is a citizen of Pennsylvania and Illinois, and that Wesco is a citizen of Delaware and New York, which is sufficient for diversity. (NOR ¶¶ 5-6.) As to the amount in controversy, “a defendant’s notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens,

, 89 (2014). Here, Wesco states that “Plaintiff seeks in excess of $75,000.00 from Defendant.” (NOR ¶ 7.) It further asserts that “Plaintiff seeks to recover the amount it paid, in part or in full” to defend itself and to settle an underlying negligence/premises action. (Id.) However, ______________________________________________________________________________ CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 5:23-cv-00521-JLS-SHK Date: April 07, 2023 Title: Valley Forge Insurance Company v. Wesco Insurance Company Wesco includes no other information about what amount Plaintiff seeks or any facts to plausibly demonstrate that that amount exceeds $75,000. Accordingly, Wesco is ORDERED to show cause, in writing (no longer than five (5) pages), within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, why the Court should not remand this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to timely respond will result in the immediate remand of the case.

Initials of Preparer: vrv

______________________________________________________________________________