1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 FERNANDO GASTELUM, Case No. 22-cv-08149-NC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 12 STATE LAW CLAIMS SHOULD v. NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK 13 OF SUBJECT MATTER

STARBUCKS CORPORATION, JURISDICTION

14 Defendant. Re: ECF 65, 66 15 16 17 This Court orders Fernando Gastelum to show cause why his state law claims under 18 the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Disabled Persons Act, and for malice and oppression should 19 not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited 20 jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 21 District courts have subject matter jurisdiction through federal question or diversity 22 jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity 23 of citizenship and an amount in controversy greater than $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 24 Gastelum claims this Court has diversity jurisdiction, but does not provide sufficient 25 information to establish amount in controversy. See ECF 61 ¶19. 26 Gastelum states that “the amount in controversy, including (1) cost of compliance 27 with injunctive relief, (2) statutory damages, and (3) attorney’s fees, all of which, to the 1 Without further information on the amount in controversy, this Court cannot assess 2 || whether the requirements for diversity jurisdiction are satisfied. 3 Accordingly, Gastelum must show cause in writing by August 8, 2024, how his 4 || state law claims meet the amount in controversy and why they should not be dismissed for 5 || lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: July 25, 2024 he _

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12

13

14

15

A 16

& 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28