Everett Roberts v. Simple Technology Solutions, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EVERETT ROBERTS, Case No. 2:24-cv-05846-FLA (Ex)

Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

REMANDED FOR LACK OF

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

SIMPLE TECHNOLOGY

15 SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that 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. District 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). Federal courts have…