Hilda Cortez v. Nissan North America, Inc. et al

Filing 21

MINUTES (In Chambers) by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE, in writing only, to be received by the Court no later than November 7, 2024, for why this action should not be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (specifically, with respect to the amount in controversy, including an evidentiary showing). Failure to timely respond to this order shall result in a remand without further warning. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.) (rolm)

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

2:24-cv-05909-ODW (PDx)

Title

Hilda Cortez v. Nissan North America, Inc. et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

October 29, 2024

Otis D. Wright, II, United States District Judge

Sheila English

Not reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not present

Not present

Proceedings:

In Chambers

Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction only as authorized by the Constitution and
Congress. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.
375, 377 (1994). A suit filed in state court may be removed to federal court only if the federal
court would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal courts
have original jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law or where each plaintiff’s
citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Id. §§ 1331, 1332(a).
A notice of removal must include “a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy
exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens,
574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). Where “the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the defendant’s
allegation” concerning the amount in controversy, “both sides submit proof,” and the court
decides whether the defendant has proven the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the
evidence. Id. at 88–89. “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the
right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint and Defendant’s Notice of Removal. The
Court finds that neither contain allegations which on their face plausibly establish that the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Thus, the Court questions whether it has subjectmatter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

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

2:24-cv-05909-ODW (PDx)

Date

Title

Hilda Cortez v. Nissan North America, Inc. et al.

October 29, 2024

Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE, in writing only, to be
received by the Court no later than November 7, 2024, for why this action should not be
remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (specifically, with respect to the amount in
controversy, including an evidentiary showing). Failure to timely respond to this order shall
result in a remand without further warning.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

00

SE

Page 2 of 2