City Business Shipping, Inc. v. Trademango Solutions US, Inc. ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CITY BUSINESS SHIPPING, INC. Case No. 2:23-cv-08542-FLA (Ex) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF 14 SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION TRADEMANGO SOLUTIONS US, 15 INC., et al., 16 Defendants. 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 jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law or 9 where each plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship and the 10 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. 11 §§ 1331, 1332(a). Thus, a notice removing an action from state court to federal court 12 must include “a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the 13 jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 14 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). Where “the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the 15 defendant’s allegation” concerning the amount in controversy, “both sides [shall] 16 submit proof,” and the court may then decide whether the defendant has proven the 17 amount in controversy “by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at 88–89. “Federal 18 jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first 19 instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 20 The court has reviewed the Notice of Removal (Dkt. 1) and is presently unable 21 to conclude it has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In particular, 22 and without limitation, the court finds that the allegations in the Notice of Removal do 23 not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy 24 exceeds $75,000. See Dkt. 1 ¶ 5. In its Complaint, Plaintiff alleges in conclusory 25 fashion it is entitled in an amount “to exceed Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000).” 26 Dkt. 1-1 ¶¶ 16, 23, 29. Plaintiff provides no support or explanation for this amount. 27 For example, Plaintiff alleges no calculation of expectation damages had Defendant 28 Trademango Solutions US, Inc. (“Defendant”) performed under the alleged contract. | | Nor, for example, does Plaintiff provide a calculation of reliance damages—e.g., 2 | damages Plaintiff suffered to “obtain[] and set aside trucks, warehouse space, and 3 || employees and [to make] specific warehouse modifications.” Jd. ¥ 5. 4 The parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing only, within 5 | fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be remanded 6 | for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy does not 7 | exceed the jurisdictional threshold. The parties are encouraged to submit evidence 8 | and/or judicially noticeable facts in response to the court’s Order. Responses shall be 9 | limited to ten (10) pages in length. The parties should consider this Order to be a two- 10 | pronged inquiry into the facial and factual sufficiency of Defendant’s demonstration 11 | ofjurisdiction. See Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2014). 12 As Defendant is the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Defendant’s failure to 13 | respond timely and adequately to this Order shall result in remand of the action 14 | without further notice. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 | Dated: April 3, 2024 19 : 20 FERNANDO Ev AENLLE-ROCHA 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28