1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WALTER H. SMITH, Case No. 2:22-cv-03734-FLA (AGRx)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

13 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

REMANDED FOR LACK OF

14

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

FCA US, LLC, 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). A complaint filed in federal court must contain “a plausible 12 allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart 13 v. Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). Where a 14 party contests, or a court questions, a party’s allegations concerning the amount in 15 controversy, both sides shall submit proof, and the court must decide whether the 16 party asserting jurisdiction has proven the amount in controversy by a preponderance 17 of the evidence. Id. at 88–89; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at 18 any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). 19 The same procedures apply when the existence of complete diversity of the parties is 20 called into question. See, e.g., Verb Tech. Co., Inc. v. Baker & Hostetler LLP, Case 21 No. 2:21-cv-06500-ODW (MAAx), 2021 WL 4125207 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2021). Of 22 relevance here, claims filed under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act do not trigger 23 federal question jurisdiction unless the amount in controversy is equal to or greater 24 than “the sum or value of $50,000 (exclusive of interests and costs) computed on the 25 basis of all claims to be determined in [the] suit.” 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(3)(B); 26 Khachatryan v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01290-PA (PDx), 2021 WL 27 927266, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2021). 28 The court has reviewed the Complaint and is presently unable to conclude it has 1 subject matter jurisdiction. In particular, and without limitation, the court finds that 2 the allegations in the Complaint do not demonstrate by a preponderance of the 3 evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000. 4 The parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing only, within 5 fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be 6 dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy 7 does not exceed the jurisdictional threshold. The parties are encouraged to submit 8 evidence and/or judicially noticeable facts in response to the court’s Order. 9 Responses shall be limited to ten (10) pages in length. The parties should consider 10 this Order to be a two-pronged inquiry into the facial and factual sufficiency of 11 Plaintiff’s demonstration of jurisdiction. See Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1122 12 (9th Cir. 2014). 13 As Plaintiff is the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s failure to 14 respond timely and adequately to this Order shall result in dismissal of the action 15 without further notice. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: November 8, 2023 20 ______________________________ 21

FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA

22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28