William Moreno v. ABC Phones of North Carolina, Inc.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM MORENO, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00831-FLA (AJRx)
12 Plaintiffs,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
13 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
REMANDED FOR LACK OF
14
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
ABC PHONES OF NORTH
15 CAROLINA, INC., et al., 16 Defendants.
17
18 Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing only “power 19 authorized by the Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 20 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Courts are presumed to 21 lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record. See 22 DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n. 3 (2006). Additionally, federal 23 courts have an obligation to examine jurisdiction sua sponte before proceeding to the 24 merits of a case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). 25 The Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) vests original jurisdiction in district 26 courts over a purported class action if all the…