Opinion
22-cv-08149-NC
07-25-2024
FERNANDO GASTELUM, Plaintiff, v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Defendant.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY STATE LAW CLAIMS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION RE: ECF 65, 66
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS, United States Magistrate Judge
This Court orders Fernando Gastelum to show cause why his state law claims under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Disabled Persons Act, and for malice and oppression should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). District courts have subject matter jurisdiction through federal question or diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy greater than $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Gastelum claims this Court has diversity jurisdiction, but does not provide sufficient information to establish amount in controversy. See ECF 61 ¶19.
Gastelum states that “the amount in controversy, including (1) cost of compliance with injunctive relief, (2) statutory damages, and (3) attorney's fees, all of which, to the best of Plaintiff's estimate, greatly exceed the statutory threshold of $75,000.00.” Id. Without further information on the amount in controversy, this Court cannot assess whether the requirements for diversity jurisdiction are satisfied.
Accordingly, Gastelum must show cause in writing by August 8, 2024, how his state law claims meet the amount in controversy and why they should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.