Robert W. Stober, Jr. v. Carnival Corporation and PLC
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT W. STOBER, JR., Case No. 2:23-cv-06095-FLA (RAOx)
12 Plaintiff,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
13 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF
14
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
CARNIVAL CORPORATION AND
15 AND CONTINUING SCHEDULING
PLC,
CONFERENCE
16 Defendant.
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…