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