1

2

3

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 LINDA BODLANDER, Case No. 2:25-cv-03743-CV (MARx) 8 Plaintiffs, 9 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 10 REMANDED FOR LACK OF

11 THE NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP, SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION LLC, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14

15 Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power 16 authorized by the Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 17 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. District courts are 18 presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record. 19 See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n. 3 (2006). Additionally, 20 federal courts have an obligation to examine jurisdiction sua sponte before proceeding 21 to the merits of a case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). 22 Federal courts have jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law or where 23 each plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship and the amount 24 in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. 25 §§ 1331, 1332(a). A complaint filed in federal court must contain “a plausible allegation 26 that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee 27 Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). Where a party contests, or the 28 1 | court questions, a party’s allegations concerning the amount in controversy, both sides 2 | shall submit proof, and the court must decide whether the party asserting jurisdiction 3 | has proven the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. Jd. at 88-89: 4 | see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject- 5 || matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”’). “Federal jurisdiction must be 6 || rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. 7 | Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 8 The Court has reviewed the Notice of Removal and is presently unable to 9 | conclude it has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In particular, and 10 | without limitation, the Court finds that the allegations in the Notice of Removal do not 11 | demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds 12 | $75,000. 13 The parties ace ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing only, within fourteen 14 | (14) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be remanded for lack 15 | of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy does not exceed the 16 | jurisdictional threshold. The parties are encouraged to submit evidence and/or judicially 17 | noticeable facts in response to the Court’s Order. Responses shall be limited to ten (10) 18 | pages in length. The parties should consider this Order to be a two-pronged inquiry into 19 | the facial and factual sufficiency of Defendant’s demonstration of jurisdiction. See Leite 20 | v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2014). 21 As Defendant is the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Defendant’s failure to 22 || respond timely and adequately to this Order shall result in remand of the action without 23 | further notice. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 | Dated: 9/3/25 lipathin Valunzusele 7 HOM. CYNTHIA VALENZUELA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28