Hoofnagle v. Safeway Inc
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
CASE NO. C21-5254JLR
Before the court is Plaintiff Keith Hoofnagle’s complaint against Defendant
Safeway Inc. for negligence. (Compl. (Dkt. # 1).) Mr. Hoofnagle alleges that the court
has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and that “[t]he amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.” (Id. ¶¶ 5-8.) This allegation is insufficient for the court to
determine its own subject matter jurisdiction.
Federal district courts are “courts of limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that
power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs.,
Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005). If a federal court determines that it lacks subject matter
ORDER - 1
jurisdiction at any time during a dispute, the court must dismiss the action. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Rosales v. United States, 824 F.2d 799, 803 n.4 (9th Cir. 1987). Federal
diversity jurisdiction exists when a lawsuit arises between citizens of different states and
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The party invoking
jurisdiction must allege facts that establish the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Lujan
v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).
Here, it is Mr. Hoofnagle’s burden “both to allege with sufficient particularity the
facts creating jurisdiction, in view of the nature of the right asserted, and . . . if inquiry be
made by the court of its own motion, to support the allegation.” See St. Paul Mercury
Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288 n.10 (1938). Because 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. If Mr.
Hoofnagle fails to respond to this order or fails to provide information establishing the
requisite amount in controversy or some other basis for the court’s exercise of subject
matter jurisdiction over this action, the court will dismiss this action.
Dated this 26th day of April, 2021.
JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge
ORDER - 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?