UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 23-5803-DMG (KSx) Date September 12, 2023

Title Andrea Maria Grant v. Horace Junior Grant Page 1 of 1

Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

KANE TIEN NOT REPORTED

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present None Present

Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS] ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION

SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION

On July 10, 2023, Defendant Horace Junior Grant filed a notice of removal of this action, originally filed in the Superior Court for the County of San Luis Obispo. [Doc. # 1.] Defendant has neither filed a copy of the summons and complaint in the state court action nor provided a basis for removal to this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) (requiring that a notice of removal include a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, as well as a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon the defendant in the action). Rather, Defendant attached to the notice of removal what appears to be a copy of an article discussing the Supreme Court’s opinion in Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 598 U.S. 175 (2023).

Without a copy of the complaint in the state court action, the Court is unable to ascertain whether subject matter jurisdiction exists over the action. Defendant has the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. See Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). Moreover, the Court has an independent duty to ascertain its subject matter jurisdiction and may remand an action to state court sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED to show cause by October 10, 2023 why this action should not be remanded to state court for failure to establish the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The Court defers ruling on the in forma pauperis application until and unless Defendant responds satisfactorily to this Order to Show Cause. Failure to timely comply with this Order will result in dismissal of this action without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.