Shonice Eaton v. Dollar Tree, Inc.et al
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SHONICE EATON, Case No. 2:23-cv-10094-FLA (MARx)
Plaintiff,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
REMANDED FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
DOLLAR TREE, INC., et al., 15 Defendants.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing only “power authorized by the Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n. 3 (2006). Additionally, federal courts have an obligation to examine jurisdiction sua sponte before proceeding to the merits of a case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). Federal courts have jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law or where each plaintiff’s citizenship is…