Juana Meza et al v. General Motors LLC

Filing 16

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 fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, why this action should 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 ten (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

Plaintiffs,

12
13
14
15
16

Case No. 2:24-cv-00070-FLA (PDx)

JUANA MEZA, et al.,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
REMANDED FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

v.
GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

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

Federal courts have jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law or
where each plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship and the

10

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C.

11

§§ 1331, 1332(a). Thus, a notice removing an action from state court to federal court

12

must include “a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the

13

jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574

14

U.S. 81, 89 (2014). Where “the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the

15

defendant’s allegation” concerning the amount in controversy, “both sides [shall]

16

submit proof,” and the court may then decide whether the defendant has proven the

17

amount in controversy “by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at 88–89. “Federal

18

jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first

19

instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).

20

The court has reviewed the Notice of Removal and is presently unable to

21

conclude it has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In particular,

22

and without limitation, the court finds that the allegations in the Notice of Removal do

23

not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy

24

exceeds $75,000.

25

The parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing only, within

26

fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be remanded

27

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy does not

28

exceed the jurisdictional threshold. The parties are encouraged to submit evidence
2

1

and/or judicially noticeable facts in response to the court’s Order. Responses shall be

2

limited to ten (10) pages in length. The parties should consider this Order to be a two-

3

pronged inquiry into the facial and factual sufficiency of Defendant’s demonstration

4

of jurisdiction. See Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2014).

5

As Defendant is the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Defendant’s failure to

6

respond timely and adequately to this Order shall result in remand of the action

7

without further notice.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

Dated: February 1, 2024

12
13
14

______________________________
FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3