1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHAIM DANIEL WOLMARK, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02716-FLA (JPRx)

12 Plaintiffs,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

13 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF

14

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

STATE FARM MUTUAL

15

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

16 COMPANY, et al., Defendants. 17

18 19

20 21

22 23 24 25 26

27

28 1 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 2 Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing only “power 3 authorized by the Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 4 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Courts are presumed to 5 lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record. See 6 DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n. 3 (2006). Additionally, federal 7 courts have an obligation to examine jurisdiction sua sponte before proceeding to the 8 merits of a case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). 9 The Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) vests original jurisdiction in district 10 courts over a purported class action if all the following requirements are met: (1) the 11 amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000; (2) at least one putative class member is a 12 citizen of a state different from any defendant; and (3) the putative class exceeds 100 13 members. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), (5). 14 A complaint filed in federal court must contain “a plausible allegation that the 15 amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin 16 Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). Where a party contests or the court 17 questions another party’s allegations concerning the amount in controversy, both sides 18 shall submit proof and the court must decide whether the party asserting jurisdiction 19 has proven the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 88– 20 89; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks 21 subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). 22 This procedure applies equally to the amount in controversy requirement in 23 CAFA actions. See Ibarra v. Manheim Invs. Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015) 24 (“When plaintiffs … have prepared a complaint that does not assert the amount in 25 controversy, or that affirmatively states that the amount in controversy does not 26 exceed $5 million, if a defendant wants to pursue a federal forum under CAFA, that 27 defendant in a jurisdictional dispute has the burden to put forward evidence showing 28 that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million … and to persuade the court that I | the estimate of damages in controversy is a reasonable one.’’). “Under this system, 2 | CAFA’s requirements are to be tested by consideration of real evidence and the reality 3 || of what is at stake in the litigation, using reasonable assumptions underlying the ... 4 || theory of damages exposure.” Jd. Asa result, the party asserting jurisdiction in 5 | CAFA actions bears the burden to put forward allegations and sufficient evidence that 6 | the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. 7 The court has reviewed the Complaint in this action and is presently unable to 8 | conclude it has subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA. In particular, and without 9 | limitation, the court finds that the allegations in the Complaint do not demonstrate by 10 | a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. 1] Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing only, 12 | within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be 13 | dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The parties are encouraged to submit 14 | evidence and/or judicially noticeable facts in response to the court’s Order. 15 | Responses shall be limited to ten (10) pages in length. The parties should consider 16 | this Order to be a two-pronged inquiry into the facial and factual sufficiency of 17 | Plaintiff's demonstration of jurisdiction. See Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1122 18 | (9th Cir. 2014). 19 As Plaintiff is the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Plaintiff's failure to 20 | respond timely and fully to this Order shall result in dismissal of the action without 21 | further notice. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 | Dated: May 23, 2025

FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA

United States District Judge 27 28