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)

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