1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARISA SABADASH, Case No. 2:23-cv-06265-FLA (KSx)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

13 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

REMANDED FOR LACK OF

14

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

SARL BREVENT, 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 Federal courts have jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law or 9 where each plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship and the 10 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. 11 §§ 1331, 1332(a). Thus, a notice removing an action from state court to federal court 12 must include “a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the 13 jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 14 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). Where “the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the 15 defendant’s allegation” concerning the amount in controversy, “both sides [shall] 16 submit proof,” and the court may then decide whether the defendant has proven the 17 amount in controversy “by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at 88–89. “Federal 18 jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first 19 instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 20 The court has reviewed Defendant Jean-Francois Blet’s (“Blet”) Notice of 21 Removal and is presently unable to conclude it has subject matter jurisdiction under 22 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In particular, and without limitation, the court finds that the 23 allegations in the Notice of Removal do not demonstrate by a preponderance of the 24 evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 25 All parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing only, within fourteen 26 (14) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be remanded for lack 27 of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy does not exceed the 28 jurisdictional threshold. The parties are encouraged to submit evidence and/or 1 | judicially noticeable facts in response to the court’s Order. Responses shall be limited 2 || to ten (10) pages in length. The parties should consider this Order to be a two- 3 | pronged inquiry into the facial and factual sufficiency of Blet’s demonstration of 4 || jurisdiction. See Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2014). 5 As Blet is the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Blet’s failure to respond 6 | timely and adequately to this Order shall result in remand of the action without further 7 || notice. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 | Dated: September 19, 2023

8 FERNANDO FE. AENLLE-ROCHA 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28