says that this is what happened. The only sworn statement in the record is the verification of answers to interrogatories. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, this court cannot review the record and conclude that an attorney did not mean what he said in a sworn statement. Cf., French v. Smith Booth Usher Co., 56 Cal.App.2d 23, 29, 131 P.2d 863, 866 (1942) (court should not inquire into the truth of the verification, but should' only examine form and substance). Thus, we conclude that the complaint was not properly verified under Supplemental Rule C(2). B. Effect of Failure to Verify Whether the failure to file a verified complaint deprives the district court of jurisdiction is a case of first impression in this court. See Complaint of McLinn, 744 F.2d 677, 685 (9th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). The other courts that have addressed this
holding that defendants failure to attach a copy of the complaint to its notice of removal did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction and stating that to permit this minor irregularity to defeat the district courts jurisdiction would be to elevate form over substance holding that a court may rely on documents incorporated into the complaint by reference and matters of which a court may take judicial notice in deciding whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted recognizing but not deciding argument that failure to verify complaint under supplemental rules may deprive the court of jurisdiction holding that a court in deciding a rule 12b6 motion may consider a document that is incorporated by reference into the complaint holding a district courts application of supplemental jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion not of plaintiffs right