Meraz-Valencia
Meraz-Valencia v. Westlake Royal Roofing, LLC
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PEDRO MERAZ-VALENCIA, No. 2:22-cv-00491-DAD-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
14 WESTLAKE ROYAL ROOFING, LLC, LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION
15 Defendant.
16
17 18 On May 5, 2022, plaintiff filed his operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) against 19 defendant Westlake Royal Roofing, LLC.1 (Doc. No. 13.) As explained below, plaintiff must 20 provide additional information in order for the court to determine it has subject matter jurisdiction 21 over this case or if the case should be dismissed. 22 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 23 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “[S]ubject matter jurisdiction of the district court is not a 24 waivable matter and may be raised at anytime by one of the parties, by motion or in the 25 responsive pleadings, or sua sponte by the trial or reviewing court.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & 26 Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194…