Opinion
2:23-cv-07053-FLA (BFMx)
04-23-2024
VENICE-MARIE WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing only “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. 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 U.S.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 v. Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). Where a party contests, or a 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 same procedures apply when the existence of complete diversity of the parties is called into question. See, e.g., Verb Tech. Co., Inc. v. Baker & Hostetler LLP, Case No. 2:21-cv-06500-ODW (MAAx), 2021 WL 4125207 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2021).
The court has reviewed the Complaint, Dkt. 1, and the First Amended Complaint, Dkt. 13, and is presently unable to conclude it has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In particular, and without limitation, the court finds the allegations do not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. For example, Plaintiff alleges that she is owed $25,000 for lost wages based on her inability to complete a contract but provides no evidence or explanation therefor, that repairs to her vehicle are “estimated” to be $10,000 but provides no evidence or explanation therefor, that Defendants are responsible for her missing “personal and business items” which are “estimated to be $35,000” but does not describe those items or provide evidence supporting their purported worth, and that she is owed $35,000 for her time and energy at a rate of $10,000 per hour for 35 hours but provides no support that her time is valued at $10,000 per hour. Dkt. 1 at 3. The First Amended Complaint does not contain any allegations regarding specific damages. Dkt. 13.
Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE, in writing only, within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The parties are encouraged to submit evidence and/or judicially noticeable facts in response to the court's Order. Responses shall be limited to ten (10) pages in length. The parties should consider this Order to be a two-pronged inquiry into the facial and factual sufficiency of Plaintiff's demonstration of jurisdiction. See Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2014).
As Plaintiff is the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Plaintiff's failure to respond timely and adequately to this Order shall result in dismissal of the action without further notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.