1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

12 TONNETTE C.,1 Case No. 5:24-cv-1373 CV (RAOx) 13 Plaintiff(s), ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 14 ACTION SHOULD NOT BE v. REMANDED FOR LACK OF 15 SUBJECT MATTER ARROYO DE PAZ APTS, et al. JURISDICTION 16 Defendants. 17 18 Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power 19 authorized by the Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 20 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. District courts are presumed to 21 lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record. See 22 DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n. 3 (2006). Additionally, federal courts 23 have an obligation to examine jurisdiction sua sponte before proceeding to the merits of a 24 case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). In cases removed 25 26 27 1 Plaintiff’s name is partially redacted in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c)(2)(B) and the recommendation of the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial 28 Conference of the United States. 1 federal court, “[i|f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court 2 |\lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case sha// be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) 3 || (emphasis added). 4 Plaintiff originally filed this action in Riverside County Superior Court. Doc. # 1-1. 5 || Defendants removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C §§ 1442(a)(1) and 1446 6 because Plaintiff named the Social Security Administration and its commissioner as 7 ||defendants. Doc. # 1 at 2. Given the Court’s recent order accepting the report and 8 || recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Oliver and dismissing the federal defendants as 9 || parties, the Court no longer appears to have subject matter jurisdiction of this case. 10 Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing only, within 11 || fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be remanded for 12 of subject matter jurisdiction. Responses shall be limited to ten (10) pages in length. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 || Dated: 6/24/25 | yoathia 5 V A Qon ausla 17 OW. CYNTHIA VALENZUELA ig UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28