Emiley Schoonover v. Iovate Health Sciences U.S.A. Inc.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: July 19, 2023
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01487
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EMILEY SCHOONOVER, Case No. 2:20-cv-01487-FLA (AGRx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF 14 SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IOVATE HEALTH SCIENCES U.S.A. 15 INC., 16 Defendants.

18 19 Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing only “power 20 authorized by the Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 21 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Courts are presumed to 22 lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record. See 23 DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n. 3 (2006). Additionally, federal 24 courts have an obligation to examine jurisdiction sua sponte before proceeding to the 25 merits of a case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). 26 The Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) vests original jurisdiction in district 27 courts over a purported class action if all the following requirements are met: (1) the 28 amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000; (2) at least one putative class member is a 1 citizen of a state different from any defendant; and (3) the putative class exceeds 100 2 members. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), (5). 3 A complaint filed in federal court must contain “a plausible allegation that the 4 amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin 5 Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). Where a party contests or the 6 court questions another party’s allegations concerning the amount in controversy, both 7 sides shall submit proof and the court must decide whether the party asserting 8 jurisdiction has proven the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the 9 evidence. Id. at 88–89; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any 10 time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). 11 This procedure applies equally to the amount in controversy requirement in 12 CAFA actions. “When plaintiffs . . . have prepared a complaint that does not assert 13 the amount in controversy, or that affirmatively states that the amount in controversy 14 does not exceed $5 million, if a defendant wants to pursue a federal forum under 15 CAFA, that defendant in a jurisdictional dispute has the burden to put forward 16 evidence showing that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million . . . and to 17 persuade the court that the estimate of damages in controversy is a reasonable one.” 18 Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015). “Under this system, 19 CAFA’s requirements are to be tested by consideration of real evidence and the reality 20 of what is at stake in the litigation, using reasonable assumptions underlying the . . . 21 theory of damages exposure.” Id. As a result, the party asserting jurisdiction in 22 CAFA actions bears the burden to put forward allegations and sufficient evidence that 23 the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. 24 The court has reviewed the Complaint in this action and is presently unable to 25 conclude it has subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA. In particular, and without 26 limitation, the court finds that the allegations in the Complaint do not demonstrate by 27 a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. 28 I Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing only, 2 || within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be 3 | dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The parties are encouraged to submit 4 || evidence and/or judicially noticeable facts in response to the court’s Order. 5 | Responses shall be limited to ten (10) pages in length. The parties should consider 6 | this Order to be a two-pronged inquiry into the facial and factual sufficiency of 7 || Plaintiff's demonstration of jurisdiction. See Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1122 8 | (9th Cir. 2014). 9 As Plaintiff is the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Plaintiff's failure to 10 | respond timely and fully to this Order shall result in dismissal of the action without 11 | further notice. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 | Dated: July 19, 2023 16 "7 FERNANDO. AENLLE-ROCHA 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28