Shalomith Reed v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: February 5, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-00453
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL

Case No. 2:26-cv-00453-AH-(DSRx) Date February 5, 2026 Title Shalomith Reed v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al.

Present: The Honorable Anne Hwang, United States District Judge

Yolanda Skipper —_Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that 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. District 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 US.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a). A complaint filed in federal court must contain “a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). Where a party contests, or the court questions, a party’s allegations concerning the

amount in controversy, both sides shall submit proof, and the court must decide whether the party asserting jurisdiction has proven the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 88–89; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). “The removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls to the party invoking the statute.” See California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir.), amended on denial of reh’g by, 387 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2004).

The Court has reviewed the Notice of Removal and is presently unable to conclude it has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In the Notice of Removal, Defendant cites the Complaint for the claim that the amount paid or payable for the Subject Vehicle under the lease contract is $46,147.99. Notice of Removal (“NOR”), Dkt. No. 1 at 3. Defendant also states that “[a]t minimum, the potential liability to MBUSA in this action, without any consideration of claimed incidental or consequential damages or civil penalty, and accounting for any buyout of the vehicle is $138,443.97. The amount in controversy of $75,000.00 is met.” Id. at 4. Defendant, however, does not provide any support for this calculation. See generally id.

Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order, why this action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Responses shall be limited to ten (10) pages in length. As Defendant is the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Defendant’s failure to respond timely and adequately to this Order shall result in remand of the action without further notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.