DaVinci Aircraft Inc v. king Precision Solutions LLC et al

Filing 23

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, why this Action should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 10/18/2013. SEE ORDER. (im)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-2610 CBM (CWx)

Title

DaVinci Aircraft Inc v. King Precision Solutions LLC et al

Present: The
Honorable

Date

CONSUELO B. MARSHALL
Yolanda Skipper

n/a

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

n/a

Proceedings:

October 15, 2013

n/a

IN CHAMBERS/OFF THE RECORD
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, why this Action should not be
dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Subject matter jurisdiction
Federal subject matter jurisdiction is satisfied by diversity or federal question jurisdiction.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has federal question jurisdiction for claims “arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, this Court has diversity
jurisdiction over matters in which all plaintiffs are of different citizenship than all defendants, and in
which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Federal courts construe their diversity jurisdiction
narrowly. Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
Plaintiffs assert that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Action pursuant to
diversity jurisdiction because there is complete diversity among the parties and because the amount in
controversy exeeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. Plaintiffs have alleged facts to show that
there is complete diversity. Plaintiffs assert that the amount in controversy is $300,000, but Plaintiff
does not indicate how much it actually paid for the device. Though there is an eBay advertisement that
alleges a “Buy It Now” price of $2,550.00, Plaintiff does not state how much it actually paid for the item
that is in dispute. (Complaint ¶¶ 27, 38). Further, though Plaintiff alleges that it was damaged in the
amount of $300,000, there is no indication that the amount in controversy ought to be gauged by the
amount the nosecone was allegedly valued rather than how much Plaintiff paid for it. Cf Gaspar v.
Wachovia Bank, C 10-3597 SBA, 2010 WL 4314884, *1, *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2010).
No oral argument on this matter will be heard unless otherwise ordered by the Court. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Plaintiff is Ordered to provide in writing by October 18, 2013 the
CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-2610 CBM (CWx)

Date

Title

October 15, 2013

DaVinci Aircraft Inc v. King Precision Solutions LLC et al

factual and legal basis for satisfying subject matter jurisdiction. The Order will stand submitted upon
the filing of the response. Failure to respond to this Order on or before October 18, 2013 will result in
the dismissal of this action, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

YS

Page 2 of 2