The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 JAMES EDWARD BROWN, Case No. 25-cv-07488-EMC
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
9 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
10 WEST COAST-HEGENBERGER
PROPERTIES, LLC,
11
Defendant.
12
13
I. BACKGROUND
14
On June 30, 2026, the Court held a status conference, at which Plaintiff failed to appear.
15
Dkt. No. 59. At the status conference, the Court raised concerns about whether there is subject
16
matter jurisdiction in this case. Id. These concerns were based on the face of the complaint. On
17
September 1, 2026, Defendant filed a status report apprising the Court that Plaintiff had failed to
18
serve mandatory Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) disclosures and requesting that the
19
Court issue an order to show cause to Plaintiff why the case should not be dismissed for lack of
20
jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 60. On September 2, Plaintiff filed a notice stating that he served Rule 26
21
disclosures. Dkt. No. 61. That same day, Defendant filed a response, contending that Plaintiff’s
22
disclosures did not comply with Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) because he did not provide the documents
23
on which his claimed damages are based. Dkt. No. 62. Defendant also argues that there is no
24
basis for Plaintiff’s claimed emotional distress damages. Id.
25
On September 9, Defendant filed a notice stating that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
26
Procedure 36(a)(3), Plaintiff had defaulted on the deadline to respond to Defendant’s First Set of
27
Requests for Admission (Nos. 1–20). Dkt. No. 63. Defendant notes that the parties met and
1 conferred on September 9 about the missed deadline. Id. Following the meet-and-confer, Plaintiff
2 sent Defendant an email in which he provided responses to Defendant’s First Set of Requests for
3 Admission (Nos. 1–20). Id., Ex. D. On September 10, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the
4 Court permit Plaintiff’s admissions to be withdrawn. Dkt. No. 64.
5
6 II. DISCUSSION
7 Plaintiff claims diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which requires that the
8 amount in controversy be $75,000 or more. Plaintiff, as “the party asserting diversity jurisdiction
9 bears the burden of proof.” Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749 (9th Cir. 1986). Generally, the
10 amount in controversy is “determined from the face of the pleadings,” and the sum claimed by
11 plaintiff “controls so long as the claim is made in good faith.” Crum v. Circus Circus Enters., 231
12 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000). To justify dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, “it must appear to a
13 legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount.” Budget Rent-A-Car,
14 Inc. v. Higashiguchi, 109 F.3d 1471, 1473 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v.
15 Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938)).
16 In the operative complaint, Plaintiff does not specify the amount claimed in damages. Dkt.
17 No. 53. Earlier complaints and the parties’ joint statement of June 22, 2026 state that Plaintiff
18 seeks damages of $10,000,000. Dkt. Nos. 5, 13, 57. In his disclosures to Defendant, Plaintiff
19 alleges damages of just over $750,000, about $600,000 of which are for emotional distress. Dkt.
20 No. 62, Ex. A. Because “[n]o California case has allowed recovery for emotional distress arising
21 solely out of property damage,” Erlich v. Menezes, 21 Cal. 4th 543, 554 (1999), the Court’s
22 analysis focuses solely on the non-emotional distress damages.
23 On the record before the Court, it does not appear to a legal certainty that Plaintiff’s claim
24 is for less than $75,000. In his disclosures to Defendant, Plaintiff asserts damages of $31,500 in
25 stolen personal property, $69,600 in lost Uber/Lyft/Amazon rideshare and delivery income,
26 $30,000 in lost photography/shipping-and-receiving business revenue, $500 in vehicle damage,
27 $5,000 in “replacement and other out-of-pocket expenses,” and $20,000 in “loss/disruption of
] provided no invoices, business records, earnings statements, or other supporting records to
2 || substantiate these claims. But this lack of substantiation would go to the adequacy of □□□□□□□□□□□
3 Rule 26(a) disclosures, not whether there is federal jurisdiction.
4 Defendant’s request for an order to show cause to Plaintiff why the case should not be
5 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction is DENIED. The Court will enter an order referring discovery
6 || disputes to a magistrate judge, and the parties’ disputes as to the adequacy of Plaintiff's initial
7 || disclosures and admissions under Rule 36 should be resolved in that forum.
8
9 IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
11 Dated: September 11, 2026
g
EDWARD M. CHEN
= 13 United States District Judge
14
15
16
(17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28