Michael Spielman et al v. Paul H. Gesswein Co., Inc.

Filing 14

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell. Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall file its response to this Order no later than Wednesday, June 14, 2017, at 4:00 p.m. Plaintiffs may file their response to this Order under seal so that they may inform the Court of the settlement amount in the underlying litigation. (rfi)

LINK:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

CV 17-04006 BRO (AFMx)

Title

MICHAEL SPIELMAN V. PAUL H. GESSWEIN CO., INC.

Date

June 7, 2017

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
Plaintiffs Michael and Loretta Spielman (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint in this
Court on May 30, 2017, against Defendant Paul H. Gesswein Co. (“Defendant”). (See
Dkt. No. 1 (hereinafter, “Compl.”).) Plaintiffs bring one state-law cause of action for
breach of contract. (See id.) According to Plaintiffs, this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, because the parties are diverse and the amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000. (See Compl. ¶ 3.) However, Plaintiffs fail to support
their damages allegations.
A federal court must determine its own jurisdiction, even where there is no
objection to it. 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). Under § 1332, the Court has federal subject matter
jurisdiction so long as all plaintiffs are diverse from all defendants and the amount in
controversy is, at minimum, $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiffs’ Complaint
does not adequately establish the amount in controversy requirement here.
Though Plaintiffs allege in a conclusory manner that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000, (see Compl. ¶ 3), Plaintiffs provide no support for this assertion. The
purpose of Plaintiffs’ Complaint is to enforce a settlement agreement reached between
the parties in related litigation proceeding in the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles. (See Compl. ¶¶ 11–20.) Thus, it appears that Plaintiffs contend that the
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 17-04006 BRO (AFMx)

Title

MICHAEL SPIELMAN V. PAUL H. GESSWEIN CO., INC.

Date

June 7, 2017

amount of the settlement agreement—the amount in controversy here—exceeds $75,000.
But Plaintiffs never indicate the amount of the settlement agreement and though they
attach a copy of the settlement agreement to their Complaint, they redact the amount of
settlement and have not provided the Court with an unredacted version. (See Compl., Ex.
A.) Therefore, the Court is unable to verify that the amount in controversy here exceeds
$75,000.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why this case
should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall file its
response to this Order no later than Wednesday, June 14, 2017, at 4:00 p.m. Plaintiffs
may file their response to this Order under seal so that they may inform the Court of the
settlement amount in the underlying litigation.
:

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Preparer

rf

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 2 of 2