1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARILYN GONZALEZ, Case No. 8:23-cv-02502-JWH-DFM

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

13 v. REGARDING SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION

14 AUTOZONERS, LLC, FRANCISCO FONSECA, and 15 DOES 1-50, inclusive,

16 Defendants.

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff Marilyn Gonzalez, a California citizen, originally filed this action 3 in Orange County Superior Court.1 Defendant AutoZoners, LLC 4 (“AutoZone”) removed the action to this Court, asserting diversity jurisdiction. 5 AutoZone, a corporate citizen of Nevada and Tennessee, argues that its 6 co-Defendant Francisco Fonseca, another California citizen, was fraudulently 7 joined, so his presence does not defeat diversity jurisdiction.2 8 As an initial matter in every case, the Court must ensure that it possesses 9 subject matter jurisdiction. District courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil 10 actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, 11 exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different states[.]” 12 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The party invoking the Court’s jurisdiction bears “the 13 burden of demonstrating that the court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear an 14 action.” Nguyen v. Cache Creek Casino Resort, 2021 WL 22434, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 15 Jan. 4, 2021), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Hung Nguyen v. Cache 16 Creek Casino Resort, 2021 WL 568212 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2021) (citing Kokkonen 17 v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). 18 The Court is vested with “broad discretion” to permit or deny discovery. 19 Laub v. U.S. Dept. of Int., 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003). Further, 20 “discovery should ordinarily be granted where pertinent facts bearing on the 21 question of jurisdiction are controverted or where a more satisfactory showing of 22 the facts is necessary.” Id. (quoting Butcher’s Union Loc. No. 498, United Food 23 and Com. Workers v. SDC Inv., Inc., 788 F.2d 535, 540 (9th Cir. 1986)). 24 Discovery should be granted when, as here, “the jurisdictional facts are 25 contested or more facts are needed.” Id.; see also Brophy v. Almanzar, 359 26

27 1 See generally Notice of Removal [ECF No. 1]. 1|| F. Supp. 3d 917, 926 (C.D. Cal. 2018) (sua sponte order for the parties to conduct 2|| jurisdictional discovery). 3 The Court concludes that jurisdictional discovery is appropriate for the 4|| parties to establish the diversity of citizenship requirement and for the Court 5|| definitively to determine whether it possesses subject matter jurisdiction. 6 II. DISPOSITION 7 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 8 1. The parties are GRANTED leave to engage in jurisdictional 9|| discovery, including, but not limited to, narrowly tailored interrogatories and 10 || requests for admission with respect to Fonseca’s citizenship and role in the 11|| allegations. 12 2. The parties and their respective counsel are DIRECTED to review 13|| and to consider carefully their obligations under the Local Rules and Rule 11 of 14|| the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; in particular, Rule 11(b)(3) and Rule 11(b)(4). Upon such consideration, if any party decides to withdraw any || filings, then that party may do so in accordance with the Local Rules. See, e.g,

L.R. 7-16.

18 3. Each party is DIRECTED to file no later than August 30, 2024, || supplemental briefing on the issue of diversity of citizenship and subject matter || jurisdiction. Each party’s brief should be no more than five pages in length. A 21|| hearing on this Order to Show Cause is SET for September 27, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 9D of the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and U.S. 23) Courthouse, 411 W. 4th Street, Santa Ana, California. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 GW Dated: July 2, 2024 \ . WY. 27 GNITED! STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28