Margarita Valle v. Liberty Mutual Group Inc et al

Filing 28

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE why thisaction should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction within twenty days from the date of this order. (lc)

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

MARGARITA VALLE,
individually and on behalf
of all others similarly
situated,

13
Plaintiff,
14
v.
15
16

LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INC.;
SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA,

17
18

Defendants.
___________________________

19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. EDCV 14-02000 DDP (Ex)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK
OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Plaintiff brings an action in federal court alleging unfair

20

competition and fraud under state law.

21

even assuming her allegations are true and her legal theory has

22

merit, are likely to be somewhat minimal, because the total amount

23

in question is not more than a few thousand dollars.

24

Amended Complaint (“FAC”) at 6-7.)

25

therefore, it seems unlikely that Plaintiff’s case meets the amount

26

in controversy requirement necessary for diversity jurisdiction.

27

See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

28

///

Plaintiff’s own damages,

(First

On the face of the FAC,

1

Plaintiff asserts jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2),

2

which applies to class actions.

Under the class action statute,

3

the aggregate amount in controversy requirement is $5,000,000.

4

Plaintiff asserts that there is a class of plaintiffs “tens of

5

thousands” of insured parties “from whom Defendants requested

6

reimbursement for Medical Payments without paying Defendants[’] pro

7

rata share of litigations costs and/or fees.”

8

Plaintiff provides little indication, however, of how she arrived

9

at the conclusion that such a class exists, that it numbers in the

Id.

(FAC ¶¶ 41, 43.)

10

tens of thousands, or that the aggregate amount in controversy is

11

likely to exceed the $5,000,000 requirement.

12

need not do more than allege facts sufficient to state a

13

“plausible” complaint, “bare assertions” of the elements of cause

14

of action will not do.

15

556-57 (2007).

16

Although a complaint

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

The Court therefore ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE why this

17

action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter

18

jurisdiction within twenty days from the date of this order.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23

Dated: December 30, 2014
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2