Durrani Investments Corp. v. Danny V. Stolba ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DURRANI INVESTMENTS CORP., Case No. 2:24-cv-07311-FLA (BFMx) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF 14 SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION DANNY V. STOLBA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 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). A complaint filed in federal court must contain “a plausible 12 allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart 13 v. Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). Where a 14 party contests, or a court questions, a party’s allegations concerning the amount in 15 controversy, both sides shall submit proof, and the court must decide whether the 16 party asserting jurisdiction has proven the amount in controversy by a preponderance 17 of the evidence. Id. at 88–89; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at 18 any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). 19 The same procedures apply when the existence of complete diversity of the parties is 20 called into question. See, e.g., Verb Tech. Co. v. Baker & Hostetler LLP, Case No. 21 2:21-cv-06500-ODW (MAAx), 2021 WL 4125207 at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2021). 22 The court has reviewed the Complaint and is presently unable to conclude it has 23 subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In particular, 24 and without limitation, the Complaint does not state sufficient facts to establish there 25 is complete diversity between the parties. See Dkt. 1. While Plaintiff alleges 26 Defendant’s principal business office is located in New Jersey, Plaintiff does not plead 27 facts regarding the citizenship or domicile of Defendant, who is an individual. See id. 28 ¶ 2. I Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE, in writing only, 2 || within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be 3 | dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The parties are encouraged to submit 4 | evidence and/or judicially noticeable facts in response to the court’s Order. 5 | Responses shall be limited to five (5) pages in length. The parties should consider this 6 | Order to be a two-pronged inquiry into the facial and factual sufficiency of Plaintiff's 7 || demonstration of jurisdiction. See Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 8 | 2014). 9 As Plaintiff is the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Plaintiff's failure to 10 | respond timely and adequately to this Order shall result in dismissal of the action 11 | without further notice. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 | Dated: October 18, 2024 16 "7 FERNANDO’L. AENLLE-ROCHA 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28