Opinion
23-cv-03636-NC
10-20-2023
RESHMA KAMATH, Plaintiff, v. PAYPAL, INC., Defendant.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION; CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
RE: DKT. NOS. 1, 8, 9
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Reshma Kamath filed a complaint against Defendants on July 21, 2023. ECF 1. Kamath alleges that the Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as well as jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343. Id. at ¶ 6. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and are presumptively without 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. District courts also have jurisdiction over claims brought under the Civil Rights Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1343. Kamath's complaint does not sufficiently establish subject matter jurisdiction of any kind. See ECF 1. The complaint does not on its face present a federal question. See id. Nor does Kamath bring any claims under the Civil Rights Act. See id.
The Court also notes that Kamath has not invoked diversity jurisdiction, nor does the complaint appear to meet the amount in controversy requirement. See ECF 1; 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “When a plaintiff invokes federal-court jurisdiction, the plaintiff's amount-in-controversy allegation is accepted if made in good faith.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 87 (2014). Here, Kamath seeks judgment for “$10.50 million in damages inclusive of repairs to the damages to the car from tow-away and related,” but makes no other mention of a car or car-towing in the complaint. See ECF 1. “Such an unsupported assertion as to the amount in controversy does not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement.” Poorsina v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 21-CV-05098-DMR, 2021 WL 4133866, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2021).
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Kamath to show cause in writing by November 3, 2023, why this case should not be dismissed. By this same deadline, the Court also ORDERS Kamath to elaborate on her requests for a stay. ECF 8, 9. Kamath must clarify whether arbitration has begun, the defendant's position, and the status of the arbitration.
The Court continues the Case Management Conference set for October 25, 2023, to November 29, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. by phone. A joint case management statement is due to be filed by November 22, 2023.
IT IS SO ORDERED.