Darryl Lee v. Carmax Auto Superstores California LLC et al

Filing 18

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE JURISDICTION by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. The Court ORDERS DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, by no later than March 10, 2014, why this action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff may submit a written response on or before March 17, 2014. The Court sets a hearing on this matter for March 24, 2014, at 10:00 A.M. The Court CONTINUES the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike (Docket Nos. 14 - 15 ), presently set for a hearing on February 24, 2014, to March 24, 2014, at 10:00 A.M. IT IS SO ORDERED. (jloz)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV-13-7648-MWF (VBKx)
Date: February 19, 2014
Title:
Darryl Lee -v- CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, et al.
Present: The Honorable MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. District Judge
Deputy Clerk:
Rita Sanchez

Court Reporter:
Not Reported

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
None Present

Attorneys Present for Defendant:
None Present

Proceedings (In Chambers): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE JURISDICTION
This action was removed to this Court on October 16, 2013. (Docket No. 1).
The Notice of Removal claims that jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Id.
at 2). The jurisdictional allegations in the Notice of Removal appear to be defective.
This Court has a sua sponte obligation to confirm that it has subject matter jurisdiction.
Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[I]t is well
established that ‘a court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua
sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action . . . .’” (quoting Snell v.
Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002))).
The Court has become aware of cases substantively similar to the present action
in which subject matter jurisdiction has been questioned. See Gullins v. CarMax Auto
Superstores California, LLC, No. 13-9398-JAK (CWx) (C.D. Cal.); Murray v. CarMax
Auto Superstores California, LLC, No. 12-CV-02966-L-MDD, 2013 WL 4500893
(S.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2013); Perez v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, No. 13CV-2886 BEN (BLM), 2014 WL 338838 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2014); Salang v. CarMax
Auto Superstores California, LLC, No. 13-CV-870 BEN (WVG), 2014 WL 334466
(S.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2014).
These courts have questioned both the diversity of the parties and the amount in
controversy. For example, a district court questioned whether Defendant’s principal
place of business was in California, based on a verified discovery response Defendant
had submitted in a state court proceeding in San Diego. See Murray, 2013 WL
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV-13-7648-MWF (VBKx)
Date: February 19, 2014
Title:
Darryl Lee -v- CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, et al.
4500893, at *3. Defendant, as the party seeking to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction,
bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that its principal place
of business is not in California. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.
1992).
As to the amount in controversy at the time of removal, Plaintiff sought actual
damages in the amount of $40,000, punitive damages in the amount of $34,000,
attorneys’ fees as allowed by law, and injunctive relief. (Notice of Removal at 4-5).
The Court notes, however, that the total amount of sale of Plaintiff’s vehicle was only
$18,296.27. Defendant bears the burden of showing that more than $75,000 is in
controversy.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE, in
writing, by no later than March 10, 2014, why this action should not be remanded for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff may submit a written response on or
before March 17, 2014.
The Court sets a hearing on this matter for March 24, 2014, at 10:00 A.M. The
Court CONTINUES the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike
(Docket Nos. 14-15), presently set for a hearing on February 24, 2014, to March 24,
2014, at 10:00 A.M.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
2