Elysha Castillo v. The Scion Group LLC

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: August 3, 2023
• Docket: 5:23-cv-00957
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELYSHA CASTILLO, Case No. 5:23-cv-00957-FLA (PVCx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF 14 SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION THE SCION GROUP, LLC, 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 The Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) vests original jurisdiction in district 26 courts over a purported class action if all the following requirements are met: (1) the 27 amount in controversy exceeds $5 million; (2) at least one putative class member is a 28 citizen of a state different from any defendant, and (3) the putative class exceeds 100 1 members. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), (5). The removing defendant bears the burden of 2 establishing federal jurisdiction, “including any applicable amount in controversy 3 requirement.” Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 682–83 (9th Cir. 4 2006) (citing Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). However, 5 unlike cases removed under diversity jurisdiction, “no antiremoval presumption 6 attends cases invoking CAFA.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 7 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). 8 A notice removing a case from state court to federal court must include “a 9 plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional 10 threshold.” Id. Where a party contests or the court questions another party’s 11 allegations concerning the amount in controversy, both sides shall submit proof and 12 the court must decide whether the party asserting jurisdiction has proven the amount 13 in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 88–89; see 28 U.S.C. § 14 1447 (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks 15 subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”). 16 This procedure applies equally to the amount in controversy requirement in 17 CAFA actions. “When plaintiffs . . . have prepared a complaint that does not assert 18 the amount in controversy, or that affirmatively states that the amount in controversy 19 does not exceed $5 million, if a defendant wants to pursue a federal forum under 20 CAFA, that defendant in a jurisdictional dispute has the burden to put forward 21 evidence showing that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million . . . and to 22 persuade the court that the estimate of damages in controversy is a reasonable one.” 23 Ibarra v. Manheim Invs. Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015). “Under this 24 system, CAFA’s requirements are to be tested by consideration of real evidence and 25 the reality of what is at stake in the litigation, using reasonable assumptions 26 underlying the . . . theory of damages exposure.” Id. As a result, the party asserting 27 jurisdiction in CAFA actions bears the burden to put forward allegations and 28 sufficient evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. I The court has reviewed the Defendant’s Notice of Removal and is presently 2 || unable to conclude it has subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA. In particular, and 3 | without limitation, the court finds that the allegations in the Notice of Removal do not 4 | demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy 5 || exceeds $5 million. 6 Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing only, 7 || within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be 8 | remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy 9 | does not exceed the jurisdictional threshold. The parties are encouraged to submit 10 | evidence and/or judicially noticeable facts in response to the court’s Order. 11 | Responses shall be limited to ten (10) pages in length. The parties should consider 12 | this Order to be a two-pronged inquiry into the facial and factual sufficiency of 13 | Defendant’s demonstration of jurisdiction. See Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 14 | 1122 (9th Cir. 2014). 15 As it is the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Defendant’s failure to timely 16 || respond to this Order shall result in the remand of this action without further warning. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 | Dated: August 3, 2023

2 FERNANDO‘. AENLLE-ROCHA 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28