Bobby Gray et al v. MAS Financial Services, Inc.

Filing 8

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE CONCERNING SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Andrew J. Guilford. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to appear on February 12, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (see document for details). (dro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 18-00010 AG (JDEx)
Date
Title

January 16, 2018

BOBBY GRAY ET AL. v. MAS FINANCIAL SERVICES

Present: The Honorable
ANDREW J. GUILFORD
Lisa Bredahl
Not Present
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter / Recorder
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Proceedings:

[IN CHAMBERS] ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
CONCERNING SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” and they possess “only that power
authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S.
375, 377 (1994). Plaintiffs Bobby Gray and Tanyeal Gray invoked that limited jurisdiction
when they filed a complaint against MAS Financial Services, Inc. in federal court. See id. (“It is
to be presumed that a cause lies outside of [a federal court’s] limited jurisdiction,” and “the
burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.”).
One of the asserted bases for Plaintiffs’ purported claims is the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. Plaintiffs thus appear to be invoking federal question
jurisdiction.
But the complaint shows that there was a previous lawsuit between the same parties that
settled. (See Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 25–34.) It also appears from the complaint that
Plaintiffs’ claims are essentially that Defendant breached the terms of the settlement
agreement—which would make this a breach of contract case, governed by state law. (See id.)
And if that’s the case, this Court wouldn’t have federal question subject matter jurisdiction.
Further, since the complaint doesn’t include information about the citizenship of the parties
or the amount in controversy, the Court cannot determine from the face of the complaint that
it would have diversity jurisdiction over this case.
“Nothing is to be more jealously guarded by a court than its jurisdiction.” See United States v.
Ceja-Prado, 333 F.3d 1046, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 18-00010 AG (JDEx)
Date
Title

January 16, 2018

BOBBY GRAY ET AL. v. MAS FINANCIAL SERVICES

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to appear on February 12, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. to
show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
:
Initials of Preparer

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Page 2 of 2

lmb

0