Joey Schimmel v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOEY SCHIMMEL, Case No. 2:21-cv-04973-FLA (ASx)

Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

MERCEDES-BENZ USA, et al. 15 Defendants.

17 18 Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing only “power 19 authorized by the Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 20 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. 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 23 courts have an obligation to examine jurisdiction sua sponte before proceeding to the 24 merits of a case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). 25 The Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) vests original jurisdiction in district 26 courts over a purported class action if all the following requirements are met: (1) the 27…