1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN ARZETA, Case No. 2:21-cv-02787-FLA (PDx)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

13 v. THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

REMANDED FOR LACK OF

14

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

MCLAREN AUTOMOTIVE, INC., et 15 al. 16 Defendants.

17

18 19 Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing only “power 20 authorized by the Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 21 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Courts are presumed to 22 lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record. See 23 DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n. 3 (2006). Additionally, federal 24 courts have an obligation to examine jurisdiction sua sponte before proceeding to the 25 merits of a case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). 26 Federal courts have jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law or 27 where each plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship and the 28 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. I | §§ 1331, 1332(a). Thus, a notice removing a case from state court to federal court 2 || must include “a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the 3 || jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 4 | US. 81, 89 (2014). Where “the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the 5 | defendant’s allegation” concerning the amount in controversy, “both sides [shall] 6 | submit proof,” and the court may then decide whether the defendant has proven the 7 || amount in controversy “by a preponderance of the evidence.” Jd. at 88-89. “Federal 8 | jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first 9 || instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 10 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 12 | for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy does not 13 | exceed the jurisdictional threshold. The parties are encouraged to submit evidence 14 | and/or judicially noticeable facts in response to the court’s Order. Responses shall be 15 | limited to ten (10) pages in length. Failure to respond timely or adequately to this 16 | Order to Show Cause may result in the court remanding the action without further 17 | notice. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 | Dated: July 19, 2023 22 = 5: |

FERNANDG L. AENLLE-ROCHA

24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28