Ruben Valenzuela v. King.com Limited, et al.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUBEN VALENZUELA, Case No. 2:25-cv-09082-FLA (MARx)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

13 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF

14

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

KING.COM LIMITED, 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 The Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) vests original jurisdiction in district 9 courts over a purported class action if…