1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GAGIK ZAKARYAN, Case No. 2:25-cv-04374-FLA (SSCx)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

13 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

REMANDED FOR LACK OF

14

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

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 A suit filed in a state court may be removed to federal court if the federal court 9 would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal 10 courts have original jurisdiction where an action presents a federal question under 28 11 U.S.C. § 1331, or where diversity of citizenship exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 12 Accordingly, a defendant may remove an action from state court to federal court 13 pursuant to the federal removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, on the basis of a federal 14 question or diversity jurisdiction. 15 Courts strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction, and 16 “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal 17 in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The 18 party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Id. Thus, 19 a notice removing an action from state court to federal court must include “a plausible 20 allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart 21 Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). Where “the 22 plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the defendant’s allegation” concerning the 23 amount in controversy, “both sides [shall] submit proof,” and the court may then 24 decide whether the defendant has proven the amount in controversy “by a 25 preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at 88–89. 26 The court has reviewed the Notice of Removal and is presently unable to 27 conclude it has subject matter jurisdiction. In particular, and without limitation, the 28 | | court finds that the allegations in Defendant’s Notice of Removal do not demonstrate 2 || by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000. 3 The parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing only, within 4 || fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be remanded 5 | for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy does not 6 | exceed the jurisdictional threshold. The parties are encouraged to submit evidence 7 | and/or judicially noticeable facts in response to the court’s Order. Responses shall be 8 | limited to ten (10) pages in length. The parties should consider this Order to be a two- 9 | pronged inquiry into the facial and factual sufficiency of Defendant’s demonstration 10 | of jurisdiction. See Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2014). 1] As Defendant is the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Defendant’s failure to 12 | respond timely and adequately to this Order shall result in remand of the action 13 | without further notice. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 | Dated: May 22, 2025

FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA

20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28