Ruben C Torres et al v. Ford Motor Company et al

Filing 12

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. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.) (rolm)

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. 5:24-cv-02016-FLA (SHKx)

RUBEN TORRES, et al.,

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

v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1

1

ORDER

2

Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power

3

authorized by the Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of

4

Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. District courts are

5

presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the

6

record. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n. 3 (2006).

7

Additionally, federal courts have an obligation to examine jurisdiction sua sponte

8

before proceeding to the merits of a case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526

9

U.S. 574, 583 (1999).

10

Federal courts have jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law or

11

where each plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship and the

12

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

13

§§ 1331, 1332(a). A complaint filed in federal court must contain “a plausible

14

allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart

15

Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). Where a party

16

contests, or the court questions, a party’s allegations concerning the amount in

17

controversy, both sides shall submit proof, and the court must decide whether the

18

party asserting jurisdiction has proven the amount in controversy by a preponderance

19

of the evidence. Id. at 88–89; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at

20

any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

exceeds $75,000.

28

///
2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

without further notice.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: October 29, 2024

16
17
18

______________________________
FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3