Opinion
No. C 02-04771 CRB
November 25, 2002
ORDER OF REMAND
Defendants moved this state law lawsuit on the ground of diversity jurisdiction. Now before the Court is defendants' response to the Court's Order To Show Cause why this action should not be remanded to state court for lack of jurisdiction. In their response defendants contend that they have met their burden of showing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 because plaintiff has refused to stipulate that the amount in controversy is less than that amount.
Defendants have not satisfied their burden of demonstrating that the amount in controversy is satisfied. "Since a defect in subject matter jurisdiction cannot be stipulated to or waived, attempting to force the plaintiff to enter a stipulation regarding the potential amount of damages would serve no effect in determining the actual amount in controversy at the time of removal." Conrad Associates v. Hartford Accident Indemnity. Co., 994 F. Supp. 1196, 1199 (N.D. Cal. 1998). The burden is on defendants, not the plaintiff, to prove the amount in controversy. If the Court were to conclude that a plaintiffs refusal to stipulate is sufficient to satisfy that burden, defendants in every removal dispute would force the plaintiffs to choose between stipulating against their future remedies and remaining in federal court. The Court joins the other courts in this District in declining to force plaintiffs to make such a choice. See Conrad Associates v. Hartford Accident Indemnity, Co., 994 F. Supp. 1196, 1199 (N.D. Cal. 1998); Valle v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins., 1997 WL 564047 (ND. Cal. Aug. 27, 1997); Miller v. Michigan Millers Ins. Co., 1997 WL 136242 (N.D. Cal. March 12, 1997).
Accordingly, this action is hereby REMANDED to state court.