Valerie Jackson v. Rhino Entertainment Company et al

Filing 10

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why the Court should not dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall file her response by no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, May 6, 2016. (rfi)

Download PDF
LINK: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. CV 16-01668-BRO (PJWx) Title VALERIE JACKSON V. RHINO ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY ET AL. Date May 4, 2016   Present: The Honorable BEVERLY REID O’CONNELL, United States District Judge Renee A. Fisher Not Present N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION Plaintiff Valerie Jackson (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant lawsuit against Defendants Rhino Entertainment Company and Sanctuary Records Group Ltd. (“Defendants”) on March 11, 2016, invoking this Court’s federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Dkt. No. 1 (hereinafter, “Compl.”) ¶ 1.) A federal court must determine its own jurisdiction even where the parties do not raise the issue. Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996). Because federal courts are of limited jurisdiction, they possess original jurisdiction only as authorized by the Constitution and federal statute. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Original jurisdiction may be established pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Under § 1332(a), a federal district court has jurisdiction over a civil action in which: (1) there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties; and, (2) the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000. The Court is satisfied that complete diversity exists. (See Compl. ¶ 1.) It is unclear, however, whether Plaintiff satisfies the amount in controversy requirement. In the Complaint, Plaintiff states in a conclusory fashion that the “matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of $75,000.” (Compl. ¶ 1; accord Compl. ¶ 8.) Such a “[c]onclusory allegation[] as to the amount in controversy [is] insufficient.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090–91 (9th Cir. 2003). CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Page 1 of 2   LINK: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. CV 16-01668-BRO (PJWx) Title VALERIE JACKSON V. RHINO ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY ET AL. Date May 4, 2016   Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why the Court should not dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall file her response by no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, May 6, 2016. : IT IS SO ORDERED. Initials of Preparer CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL rf Page 2 of 2  

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?