Opinion
2:22-cv-04276-FLA (MRWx)
06-24-2024
MARIO ORTEGA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
FERNANDOL 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 Daimler Chrysler 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).
Of relevance here, claims filed under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act do not trigger federal question jurisdiction unless the amount in controversy is equal to or greater than “the sum or value of $50,000 (exclusive of interests and costs) computed on the basis of all claims to be determined in [the] suit.” 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(3)(B); Khachatryan v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01290-PA (PDx), 2021 WL 927266, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2021). Courts strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction, and “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Id. 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 court has reviewed the Complaint and is presently unable to conclude it has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 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 twopronged 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.