Opinion
2:24-cv-03193-SB-AGR
04-23-2024
SBCW CONSULTING INC., Plaintiff, v. TSYS MERCHANT SOLUTIONS LLC et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION
Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., United States District Judge
Plaintiff SBCW Consulting Inc. filed this putative class action alleging overcharging of credit card processing fees on April 18, 2024, asserting federal subject-matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 23.
Federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the U.S. Constitution and Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). This Court has a duty to assess whether federal subject matter jurisdiction exists and may consider the issue sua sponte at any stage of the proceedings. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999) (recognizing that “Article III generally requires a federal court to satisfy itself of its jurisdiction over the subject matter before it considers the merits of a case”).
A federal district court has original jurisdiction under CAFA when (1) there are 100 or more members of the putative class, (2) the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and (3) minimal diversity is established. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2); see also Broadway Grill, Inc. v. Visa Inc., 856 F.3d 1274, 1276 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Under CAFA there is sufficient diversity to establish federal diversity jurisdiction so long as one class member has citizenship diverse from that of one defendant.”).
The complaint does not provide a basis for its assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 23. Thus, the Court lacks sufficient information to determine the amount in controversy. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, by no later than May 3, 2024, why the Court should not dismiss this case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.