1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NDIDI ANOFIENEM, Case No. 2:24-cv-08605-FLA (MARx)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

13 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF

14

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

GENERAL SERVICES

15 ADMINISTRATION, et al., 16 Defendants.

17

18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing only “power 2 authorized by the Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 3 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Courts are presumed to 4 lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record. See 5 DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n. 3 (2006). Additionally, federal 6 courts have an obligation to examine jurisdiction sua sponte before proceeding to the 7 merits of a case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). 8 Federal courts have jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law or 9 where each plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship and the 10 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. 11 §§ 1331, 1332(a). A complaint filed in federal court must contain “a plausible 12 allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart 13 v. Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). Where a party 14 contests, or a court questions, a party’s allegations concerning the amount in 15 controversy, both sides shall submit proof, and the court must decide whether the 16 party asserting jurisdiction has proven the amount in controversy by a preponderance 17 of the evidence. Id. at 88–89; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at 18 any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). 19 The same procedures apply when the existence of complete diversity of the parties is 20 called into question. See, e.g., Verb Tech. Co. v. Baker & Hostetler LLP, Case No. 21 2:21-cv-06500-ODW (MAAx), 2021 WL 4125207, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2021). 22 The court has reviewed the Complaint and is presently unable to conclude it has 23 subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In particular, 24 and without limitation, the court finds that the Complaint does not state sufficient 25 facts to establish the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Dart, 574 U.S. 26 at 88–89. 27 Accordingly, Plaintiff Ndidi Anofienem (“Plaintiff”) is ORDERED to SHOW 28 CAUSE in writing only on or before December 3, 2024, why this action should not be | | dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff is encouraged to submit 2 | evidence and/or judicially noticeable facts in response to the court’s Order. Plaintiff's 3 || response shall be limited to ten (10) pages in length. Plaintiff should consider this 4 || Order to be a two-pronged inquiry into the facial and factual sufficiency of Plaintiff's 5 | demonstration of jurisdiction. See Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 6 | 2014). As Plaintiff is the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Plaintiff's failure to 7 || respond timely and adequately to this Order shall result in dismissal of the action 8 | without further notice. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 | Dated: November 19, 2024 13 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA 4 United States District Judge

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28