Dobest Semiconductor Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. v. Capital Asset Exchange and Trading, LLC

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

10 DOBEST SEMICONDUCTOR Case No. 24-cv-09045-NC 11 TECHNOLOGY (SUZHOU) CO., LTD.,

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO

12 Plaintiff, SHOW CAUSE ESTABLISHING

SUBJECT MATTER

13 v. JURISDICTION

14 CAPITAL ASSET EXCHANGE AND Re: Dkt. No. 1

TRADING, LLC,

15 Defendant. 16

17 Plaintiff Dobest Semiconductor Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. alleges various 18 contract and fraud claims against Defendant Capital Asset Exchange and Trading, LLC. 19 ECF 1. Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss certain claims alleged 20 in Plaintiff’s complaint. ECF 9, 14, 16. 21 Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, a plaintiff must adequately 22 allege that a court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear their case. Kokkonen v. Guardian 23 Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). To do so, a complaint must meet the 24 requirements for either (1) federal question jurisdiction or (2) diversity jurisdiction. 28 25

U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.

26 Diversity…