Mark Johnson v. Standard Insurance Company et al

Filing 15

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Margaret M. Morrow. The Court orders plaintiff to show cause in writing on or before July 18, 2014 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If plaintiff responds to this order to show cause, defendant may file a reply on or before July 25, 2014. Should plaintiff fail to respond to this order to show cause by July 18, 2014, the court will dismiss the case forthwith. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No.

CV 14-02268 MMM (JEMx)

Date July 11, 2014

Title Johnson v. Standard Insurance Co., et al.

Present: The Honorable

MARGARET M. MORROW

ANEL HUERTA

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

Order to Show Cause Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed for Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the existence of subject
matter jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); In re
Ford Motor Co., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001); Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th
Cir. 1996). At the pleading stage, this burden is satisfied by alleging facts that show a proper basis
for jurisdiction. FED.R.CIV.PROC. 8(a)(1) (a complaint “shall contain a short and plain statement of
the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends”); see McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance
Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936) (“The prerequisites to the exercise of jurisdiction are specifically
defined and the plain import of the statute is that the District Court is vested with authority to inquire
at any time whether these conditions have been met. They are conditions which must be met by the
party who seeks the exercise of jurisdiction in his favor. He must allege in his pleading the facts
essential to show jurisdiction”).
The complaint must show “affirmatively and distinctly the existence of whatever is essential
to federal jurisdiction, and if [it] does not do so, the court, on having the defect called to its attention
or on discovering the same, must dismiss the case, unless the defect be corrected by amendment.”
Tosco Corp. v. Communities For A Better Environment, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001). Since
subject matter jurisdiction must be affirmatively alleged, courts will not infer allegations supporting
the exercise of jurisdiction. See Watson v. Chessman, 362 F.Supp.2d 1190, 1194 (S.D. Cal. 2005);
see also Tosco Corp., 236 F.3d at 499; Century Southwest Cable Television, Inc. v. CIIF Assoc.’s,
33 F.3d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 1994).

In the present case, the pleadings do not appear to establish that the court has subject matter
jurisdiction to hear the case. Specifically, the court notes the following deficiencies:
The pleadings do not adequately show that the court has federal question jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
X

The pleadings do not adequately show that the court has diversity jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1332. Specifically, the pleadings fail to show that:
The amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 (28 U.S.C. §
1332(a)).

X

There is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties (28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1)(4)). Specifically, the pleadings fail to show the citizenship of:

X
X

Plaintiff(s) Mark Johnson (pleading residency is not sufficient to plead citizenship)
Defendant(s) Standard Insurance (complaint does not plead principal place of business)
The amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000 (28 U.S.C. §
1332(d)(2)).
There is minimal diversity between the parties (28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A)-(C)).
The number of members of all proposed plaintiff classes is at least 100 (28 U.S.C. §
1332(d)(5)(B)).
Other:

Accordingly, the court orders plaintiff to show cause in writing on or before July 18, 2014
why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If plaintiff responds
to this order to show cause, defendant may file a reply on or before July 25, 2014.
Should plaintiff fail to respond to this order to show cause by July 18, 2014, the court will
dismiss the case forthwith.

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2