Setsuko Inobe v. Noriko Hino

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SETSUKO INOBE, Case No. 2:23-cv-08102-SB-JPR

Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE

NORIKO HINO, JURISDICTION

Defendant.

Plaintiff Setsuko Inobe filed a pro se complaint primarily alleging that he was improperly denied a fair trial in a state court action where he sought unpaid wages from his employer. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff requests that this Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, rectify the alleged harm he suffered in state court through a retrial. Id. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). This Court has a duty to assess whether federal subject matter jurisdiction exists and may consider the issue sua sponte at any stage of the proceedings. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 358 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999) (recognizing that “Article III generally requires a federal court to satisfy itself of its jurisdiction…