Eliasieh v. Legally Mine, LLC

Filing 59

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: JURISDICTION. Show Cause Response due by 4/11/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 4/4/2019. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
KASRA ELIASIEH,

7

Case No. 18-cv-03622-JSC

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
JURISDICTION

9
LEGALLY MINE, LLC,

10

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Plaintiff Kasra Eliasieh brings various state law claims against Defendant Legally Mine,

13
14

LLC as a putative class action arising from Plaintiff’s purchase of an asset protection plan. (Dkt.

15

No. 1.)1 The Court has an independent obligation to satisfy itself that it has federal subject matter

16

jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate, 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Gonzalez v. Thaler,

17

565 U.S. 134, 141 (2012) (“When a requirement goes to subject matter jurisdiction, courts are

18

obligated to consider sua sponte issues that the parties have disclaimed or have not presented . . .

19

Subject matter jurisdiction can never be waived or forfeited”).
Plaintiff, as “[t]he party seeking to invoke the district court’s diversity jurisdiction . . .

20
21

bears the burden of . . . pleading . . . diversity jurisdiction.” NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840

22

F.3d 606, 613-14 (9th Cir. 2016). Plaintiff alleges that the Court has diversity jurisdiction under

23

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) “because the citizenship of the parties is completely diverse and the amount

24

in controversy exceeds $75,000.” (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 1.) This conclusory allegation—devoid of any

25

connection to the facts—is insufficient to satisfy Plaintiff’s burden. See Matheson v. Progressive

26

Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Conclusory allegations as to the amount

27
28

Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the
ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.
1

1

in controversy are insufficient.”).

2

The complaint does not contain a demand for a particular amount of damages and does not

3

otherwise allege facts satisfying the amount-in-controversy requirement. Instead, Plaintiff alleges

4

that he paid $7,800 to Defendant for the asset protection plan on October 13, 2016. (Dkt. No. 1 at

5

¶ 23.) There are no other facts alleged in the complaint that make it self-evident that diversity

6

jurisdiction is satisfied. Plaintiff’s complaint therefore fails to allege diversity jurisdiction because

7

it is not apparent that the matter in controversy—concerning a $7,800 purchase—exceeds $75,000.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to how the Court has subject
matter jurisdiction over this action. Plaintiff shall show cause in writing on or before April 11,
2019. Defendant may reply by April 17, 2019.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 3, 2019
______________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2