Rosario Santillan et al v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al

Filing 96

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause Why Action Should Not be Dismissed for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction by Judge Kenly Kiya Kato. SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 9/3/2024. (twdb)

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

EDCV 22-cv-1951-KK-SHKx

Date: August 28, 2024

Title: Rosario Santillan, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al.

Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Noe Ponce

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why Action Should Not be Dismissed
for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing only “power authorized by the
Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994);
U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. The Court has an obligation to examine jurisdiction sua sponte before
proceeding to the merits of a case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999).
“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss
the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The party invoking jurisdiction has the burden of establishing
jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377.
Claims filed under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act do not trigger federal question
jurisdiction unless the amount in controversy is equal to or greater than “the sum or value of
$50,000 (exclusive of interests and costs) computed on the basis of all claims to be determined in
[the] suit.” 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(3)(B); Khachatryan v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv01290-PA-PDx, 2021 WL 927266, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2021). If Plaintiff fails to establish this
jurisdictional requirement, there are no other claims to form the basis for supplemental jurisdiction
to retain the remaining state law claims. Kelly v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., 377 F.3d 1034, 1040
(9th Cir. 2004) (holding “because [plaintiff] failed to satisfy the Magnuson–Moss Act’s $50,000
jurisdictional prerequisite, there were no claims in the action within [its] original jurisdiction to form
the basis for supplemental jurisdiction”) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
“Where a party contests or the court questions another party’s allegations concerning the
amount in controversy, both sides shall submit proof and the court must decide whether the party
asserting jurisdiction has proven the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Ford v. Hyundai Motor Am., No. 8:20-CV-00890-FLA-ADSx, 2023 WL 9894464, at *1 (C.D. Cal.
Page 1 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk NP

Aug. 30, 2023) (citing Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 88-89
(2014)).
The Court has reviewed the Complaint and cannot conclude it has subject matter
jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED
TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, no later than September 3, 2024, why this action should not be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. To the extent possible, the parties shall submit
evidence and/or judicially noticeable facts in response to the Court’s Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk NP