Robert Thomas v. Newport Beach Automotive Group, LLC ( 2024 )

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. 8:24-cv-00030-JLS-KES Date: January 17, 2024 Title: Robert Thomas v. Newport Beach Automotive Group Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Gabby Garcia N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT: Not Present Not Present PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION Plaintiff filed this action on January 4, 2024, asserting claims for fraudulent transfer under California Civil Code §§ 3439.04(a)(2)(A), 3439.07, and 3439.08. (See Compl., Doc 1.) “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, Plaintiff has the burden of establishing that this case lies within the Court’s limited jurisdiction. See id. A federal court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 if the parties to the action are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In determining the citizenship of a corporation, “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State . . . by which it has been incorporated and of the State . . . where it has its principal place of business[.]” Id. § 1332(c)(1). Here, Plaintiff makes no factual allegations about his citizenship or the citizenship of Defendant. (See generally Compl.) The Court is unable to determine whether true diversity exists. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing (no longer than five (5) pages), within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, why the Court should not dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to timely respond will result in the immediate dismissal of the case. Initials of Preparer: gga ______________________________________________________________________________