Vape Holdings Inc. et al v. Stone Arch Studio LLC

Filing 6

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 4/21/2014. (vdr)

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

CV 14-1682 FMO (JCx)

Title

Vape Holdings, Inc. v. Stone Arch Studio LLC, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

April 14, 2014

Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge

Vanessa Figueroa

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorney Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney Present for Defendant(s):

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

On March 7, 2014, plaintiff filed a Complaint in this court. However, the jurisdictional
allegations appear to be defective. Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
(Complaint at ¶ 1); see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiff alleges that the amount in controversy is in
excess of $75,000, (see Complaint ¶1), and that the amount of damages with respect to economic
losses exceeds $1,000,000. (See id. at ¶¶ 35, 40 & 50). However, plaintiff sent the prospective
contract that is the subject of this action to defendant on January 21, 2014. (See id., Exh. H at 1).
On February 4, 2014, defendant sent a letter advising plaintiff that no contract had been formed.
(See id., Exh. I). The court has doubts as to whether the amount of damages plaintiff allegedly
suffered, i.e., $1,000,000, (see id. at ¶¶ 35, 40 & 50), are sufficient to satisfy the amount in
controversy in that it is extremely unlikely that plaintiff could have sustained such damages during
the two weeks before plaintiff was notified of defendants’ position. “It is plaintiff’s burden both to
allege with sufficient particularity the facts creating jurisdiction, in view of the nature of the right
asserted, and if appropriately challenged, or if inquiry be made by the court of its own motion, to
support the allegation.” St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288 n. 10,
58 S.Ct. 586, 589 (1938); Rasidescu v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 435 F. Supp. 2d 1090, 1095
(S.D. Cal. 2006).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. No later than April 21, 2014, plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this action should
not be dismissed for the reasons noted above. The filing of a First Amended Complaint setting
forth sufficient jurisdictional allegations shall be a sufficient response to the OSC. Failure to
submit a response by the deadline set forth above may be deemed as consent to the dismissal
of the action without prejudice. Defendants may submit a response in the same time period.
2. A copy of all papers filed with the court shall be delivered to the drop box outside
chambers at Suite 520, Spring Street Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, no later than 12:00
noon the following business day. All chambers copies shall comply fully with the document
formatting requirements of Local Rule 11-3, including the “backing” requirements of Local Rule
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

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

CV 14-1682 FMO (JCx)

Date

Title

Vape Holdings, Inc. v. Stone Arch Studio LLC, et al.

April 14, 2014

11-3.5. Counsel may be subject to sanctions for failure to deliver a mandatory chambers copy in
full compliance with this Order and Local Rule 11-3.

00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

vdr

Page 2 of 2