Aaron Kass v. Lexington Medical, Inc.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: July 18, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-05044
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON KASS, Case No. 2:23-cv-05044-FLA (Ex)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF 14 SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION LEXINGTON MEDICAL, INC., et al. 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing only “power 19 authorized by the Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 20 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Courts are presumed to 21 lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record. See 22 DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n. 3 (2006). Additionally, federal 23 courts have an obligation to examine jurisdiction sua sponte before proceeding to the 24 merits of a case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). 25 Federal courts have jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law or 26 where each plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship and the 27 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. 28 §§ 1331, 1332(a). Thus, a notice removing a case from state court to federal court | | must include “a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the 2 | jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 3] U.S. 81, 89 (2014). Where “the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the 4 || defendant’s allegation” concerning the amount in controversy, “both sides [shall] 5 | submit proof,” and the court may then decide whether the defendant has proven the 6 | amount in controversy “by a preponderance of the evidence.” /d. at 88-89. “Federal 7 | jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first 8 | instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 9 The parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing only, within 10 | fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be remanded 11 | for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy does not 12 | exceed the jurisdictional threshold. The parties are encouraged to submit evidence 13 | and/or judicially noticeable facts in response to the court’s Order. Responses shall be 14 | limited to ten (10) pages in length. Failure to respond timely or adequately to this 15 | Order to Show Cause may result in the court remanding the action without further 16 | notice. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 | Dated: July 18, 2023 21 S 2 FERNANDO. AENLLE-ROCHA 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28