1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLAUDIA ROBLES, Case No. 2:23-cv-09694-FLA (MARx)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER REMANDING ACTION

13 v. 14

FESTIVAL FUN PARKS,

15 Defendant. 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 On October 8, 2024, the court issued an order to show cause (“OSC”) why this 2 action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to an 3 insufficient amount in controversy. Dkt. 14. The court provided the parties fourteen 4 days to respond and cautioned Defendant Festival Fun Parks, LLC d/b/a Raging Water 5 Los Angeles (erroneously sued as Palace Entertainment Holdings LLC) (“Defendant”) 6 that, as the party asserting federal jurisdiction, its “[f]ailure to respond timely and 7 adequately to [the OSC] shall result in remand of the action without further notice.” 8 Id. at 3. 9 Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing only “power 10 authorized by the Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 11 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Courts are presumed to 12 lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record. See 13 DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n. 3 (2006). Additionally, federal 14 courts have an obligation to examine jurisdiction sua sponte before proceeding to the 15 merits of a case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). 16 Federal courts have jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law or 17 where each plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship and the 18 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. 19 §§ 1331, 1332(a). A complaint filed in federal court must contain “a plausible 20 allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart 21 v. Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). But where a 22 party contests, or a court questions, a party’s allegations concerning the amount in 23 controversy, both sides submit proof, and the court decides whether the party claiming 24 jurisdiction has proven the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. 25 Id. at 88–89; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it 26 lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). 27 Here, Defendant has not filed any response to the court’s OSC. This, in and of 28 itself, is a sufficient basis to remand the action, because the court expressly warned | | Defendant that its failure to respond would result in remand of the action without 2 | further warning. See Dkt. 14 at 3. 3 Further, having examined the allegations in the Complaint, the court cannot 4 || determine the amount in controversy is satisfied. See Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 5 | Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 376 (9th Cir. 1997). The Complaint asserts claims against 6 | Defendant for negligence and premises liability, arising from an alleged personal 7 | injury suffered by Plaintiff Claudia Robles (‘Plaintiff’) at Defendant’s water park. 8 | See Dkt. 1-198. Plaintiff alleges $300,000 in “general and special damages,” but 9 | provides no proof or allegations substantiating these damages. See id., Prayer for 10 | Relief. It is clear the $300,000 in damages is merely a “bold optimistic prediction” 11 | and not a reasonable estimate of Plaintiff’s claims. Romsa v. Ikea U.S. W., Inc., Case 12 | No. 2:14-cv-05552-MMM (JEMx), 2014 WL 4273265, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 13 | 2014). 14 Because the court cannot conclude the amount in controversy is satisfied, the 15 | court REMANDS this action to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 16 | 23PSCV02859. All dates and deadlines in this court ace VACATED. The clerk of the 17 | court shall close the action administratively. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 | Dated: November 18, 2024 , 2 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28