Alexander Mee v. VisionTrack, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaApril 11, 20242:24-cv-02563California602 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL

Case No. CV 24-2563-JFW(Ex) Date: April 11, 2024 Title: Alexander Mee -v- VisionTrack, Inc., et al.

PRESENT:

HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Shannon Reilly None Present Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:

None None

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD

NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT

MATTER JURISDICTION

On February 21, 2024, Plaintiff Alexander Mee (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants VisonTrack, Inc. (“VT, Inc.”) and VisionTrack Limited (“VT Limited”) (collectively, “Defendants”). On March 28, 2024, VT, Inc. filed a Notice of Removal, alleging that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See Bender v. Williamsport Area School District, 475 U.S. 534, 541…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.