Mario Ruvalcaba Ortega v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARIO ORTEGA, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-04276-FLA (MRWx)

Plaintiffs,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., et 15 al., Defendants.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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). Of relevance here, claims filed under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act do not trigger…