Michael Dilanyan v. Universal Beauty Products, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MICHAEL DILANYAN, Case No. 2:24-cv-05200-FLA (MARx)

Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

UNIVERSAL BEAUTY PRODUCTS,

INC.,

Defendants.

18 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). The Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) vests original jurisdiction in district courts over a purported class…