Janette Ocegueda et al v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al
Filing
15
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha: The parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing only, within 14 days from the date of this Order, why this action shoul d not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy does not exceed the jurisdictional threshold. The parties are encouraged to submit evidence and/or judicially noticeable facts in response to the court's Order. Responses shall be limited to 10 pages in length. The parties should consider this Order to be a two-pronged inquiry into the facial and factual sufficiency of Defendant's demonstration of jurisdiction. As Defendant is the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Defendant's failure to respond timely and adequately to this Order shall result in remand of the action without further notice. (lc)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JANETTE OCEGUEDA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
12
13
14
v.
15
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.,
et al.,
16
Defendants.
Case No. 2:23-CV-10870-FLA (skx)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
REMANDED FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
1
Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing only “power
2
authorized by the Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
3
Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Courts are presumed to
4
lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record. See
5
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n. 3 (2006). Additionally, federal
6
courts have an obligation to examine jurisdiction sua sponte before proceeding to the
7
merits of a case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999).
8
9
A suit filed in a state court may be removed to federal court if the federal court
would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal
10
courts have original jurisdiction where an action presents a federal question under 28
11
U.S.C. § 1331, or where diversity of citizenship exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
12
Accordingly, a defendant may remove an action from state court to federal court
13
pursuant to the federal removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, on the basis of a federal
14
question or diversity jurisdiction. Of relevance here, claims filed under the
15
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act do not trigger federal question jurisdiction unless the
16
amount in controversy is equal to or greater than “the sum or value of $50,000
17
(exclusive of interests and costs) computed on the basis of all claims to be determined
18
in [the] suit.” 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(3)(B); Khachatryan v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, Case
19
No. 2:21-cv-01290-PA (PDx), 2021 WL 927266, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2021).
20
Courts strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction, and
21
“[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal
22
in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The
23
party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Id. Thus,
24
a notice removing an action from state court to federal court must include “a plausible
25
allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart
26
Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). Where “the
27
plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the defendant’s allegation” concerning the
28
amount in controversy, “both sides [shall] submit proof,” and the court may then
2
1
decide whether the defendant has proven the amount in controversy “by a
2
preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at 88–89.
3
The court has reviewed the Notice of Removal and is presently unable to
4
conclude it has subject matter jurisdiction. In particular, and without limitation, the
5
court finds that the allegations in Defendant’s Notice of Removal do not demonstrate
6
by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000.
7
The parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing only, within
8
fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be remanded
9
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy does not
10
exceed the jurisdictional threshold. The parties are encouraged to submit evidence
11
and/or judicially noticeable facts in response to the court’s Order. Responses shall be
12
limited to ten (10) pages in length. The parties should consider this Order to be a two-
13
pronged inquiry into the facial and factual sufficiency of Defendant’s demonstration
14
of jurisdiction. See Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2014).
15
As Defendant is the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Defendant’s failure to
16
respond timely and adequately to this Order shall result in remand of the action
17
without further notice.
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21
Dated: April 2, 2024
22
23
24
______________________________
FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA
United States District Judge
25
26
27
28
3
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?