GGY Enterprises, Inc. v. Smart Autocare

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: July 13, 2023
• Docket: 5:23-cv-00656
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GGY ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00656-FLA (SPx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF 14 SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION SMART AUTOCARE, et al. 15 RE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY Defendants. 16

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