Xiangbin Long v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

C.D. California

Xiangbin Long v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

DecidedJuly 7, 2025

Docket8:24-cv-02402

StatusUnknown

This text of Xiangbin Long v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Xiangbin Long v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Xiangbin Long v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 XIANGBIN LONG, Case No. 2:24-cv-02402 CV (KESx)

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. DISMISSED WITHOUT WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al. PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF 14 SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power 19 authorized by the Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 20 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. District 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). When 25 a district court determines that there is no subject matter jurisdiction in a non-removal 26 case, dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. See Wasson v. Brown, 316 F. App’x 663, 27 664 (9th Cir. 2009); Parker v. Ebay, No. CV 24-1863-JFW (JCx), 2024 WL 1484598, at 28 *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2024). Plaintiff Xiangbin Long’s (“Plaintiff’) First Amended Complaint (Doc. # 33, 2 ||“FAC”) does not establish jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. “The district 3 ||courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy 4 exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between — 5 || citizens of different States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Plaintiff has not alleged that the 6 ||amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and 7 |}costs. The amount in controversy is not “facially evident” from the pleading, and 8 || “[clonclusory allegations as to the amount in controversy are insufficient.” Matheson v. 9 || Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2003). Nor can Plaintiff 10 || establish jurisdiction based on a federal question, as the FAC includes only two claims, 11 based on California law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have 12 || original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treatises of 13 United States.”). 14 Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing only, 15 || within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be 16 || dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Responses shall be 17 || limited to ten (10) pages in length. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 ||DATED: 7/7/25 lypatiar, Valeng □□□□ 22 HOW. CYNTHIA VALENZUELA 23 SEE EE

24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 XIANGBIN LONG, Case No. 2:24-cv-02402 CV (KESx)

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. DISMISSED WITHOUT WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al. PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF 14 SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power 19 authorized by the Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 20 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. District 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). When 25 a district court determines that there is no subject matter jurisdiction in a non-removal 26 case, dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. See Wasson v. Brown, 316 F. App’x 663, 27 664 (9th Cir. 2009); Parker v. Ebay, No. CV 24-1863-JFW (JCx), 2024 WL 1484598, at 28 *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2024). Plaintiff Xiangbin Long’s (“Plaintiff’) First Amended Complaint (Doc. # 33, 2 ||“FAC”) does not establish jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. “The district 3 ||courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy 4 exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between — 5 || citizens of different States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Plaintiff has not alleged that the 6 ||amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and 7 |}costs. The amount in controversy is not “facially evident” from the pleading, and 8 || “[clonclusory allegations as to the amount in controversy are insufficient.” Matheson v. 9 || Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2003). Nor can Plaintiff 10 || establish jurisdiction based on a federal question, as the FAC includes only two claims, 11 based on California law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have 12 || original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treatises of 13 United States.”). 14 Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing only, 15 || within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be 16 || dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Responses shall be 17 || limited to ten (10) pages in length. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 ||DATED: 7/7/25 lypatiar, Valeng □□□□ 22 HOW. CYNTHIA VALENZUELA 23 SEE EE

24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Xiangbin Long v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/xiangbin-long-v-wells-fargo-bank-na-cacd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack