Aaron Kass v. Lexington Medical, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided July 18, 2023·No. 2:23-cv-05044·Unknown

Opinion

AARON KASS, Case No. 2:23-cv-05044-FLA (Ex)

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

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Aaron Kass v. Lexington Medical, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Aaron Kass v. Lexington Medical, Inc. (Aaron Kass v. Lexington Medical, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America
511 U.S. 375 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Ruhrgas Ag v. Marathon Oil Co.
526 U.S. 574 (Supreme Court, 1999)
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno
547 U.S. 332 (Supreme Court, 2006)