Hoofnagle v. Safeway Inc

Filing 7

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION: The court finds Mr. Hoofnagle's single allegation insufficient to establish the required amount in controversy, the court ORDERS Mr. Hoofnagle to provide supplemental information concerning the amount in controversy within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (LH)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

KEITH HOOFNAGLE,
Plaintiff,

11
v.
12
13

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
REGARDING SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION

SAFEWAY INC.,
Defendant.

14
15

CASE NO. C21-5254JLR

Before the court is Plaintiff Keith Hoofnagle’s complaint against Defendant

16

Safeway Inc. for negligence. (Compl. (Dkt. # 1).) Mr. Hoofnagle alleges that the court

17

has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and that “[t]he amount in

18

controversy exceeds $75,000.” (Id. ¶¶ 5-8.) This allegation is insufficient for the court to

19

determine its own subject matter jurisdiction.

20

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

21

power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs.,

22

Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005). If a federal court determines that it lacks subject matter

ORDER - 1

1

jurisdiction at any time during a dispute, the court must dismiss the action. See Fed. R.

2

Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Rosales v. United States, 824 F.2d 799, 803 n.4 (9th Cir. 1987). Federal

3

diversity jurisdiction exists when a lawsuit arises between citizens of different states and

4

the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The party invoking

5

jurisdiction must allege facts that establish the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Lujan

6

v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).

7

Here, it is Mr. Hoofnagle’s burden “both to allege with sufficient particularity the

8

facts creating jurisdiction, in view of the nature of the right asserted, and . . . if inquiry be

9

made by the court of its own motion, to support the allegation.” See St. Paul Mercury

10

Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288 n.10 (1938). Because the court finds Mr.

11

Hoofnagle’s single allegation insufficient to establish the required amount in controversy,

12

the court ORDERS Mr. Hoofnagle to provide supplemental information concerning the

13

amount in controversy within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order. If Mr.

14

Hoofnagle fails to respond to this order or fails to provide information establishing the

15

requisite amount in controversy or some other basis for the court’s exercise of subject

16

matter jurisdiction over this action, the court will dismiss this action.

17

Dated this 26th day of April, 2021.

18
19

A

20

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

21
22

ORDER - 2