Katharine Mitchell v. Vocovision, LLC

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 KATHARINE MITCHELL, Case No. 2:25-cv-04678-FLA (MARx) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF [14] SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION VOCOVISION, LLC, et al., [15] Defendants. [17] 18 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 19 I. Amount in Controversy Requirement 20 Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing only “power 21 authorized by the Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 22 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Courts are presumed to 23 lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record. See 24 DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 , 342 n. 3 (2006). Additionally, federal 25 courts have an obligation to examine jurisdiction sua sponte before proceeding to the 26 merits of a case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). 27 Federal courts have jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law or 28 where each plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship and the 1 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. 2 §§ 1331, 1332(a). A complaint filed in federal court must contain “a plausible 3 allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart 4 Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 , 89 (2014). Where a party 5 contests, or the court questions, a party’s allegations concerning the amount in 6 controversy, both sides shall submit proof, and the court must decide whether the 7 party asserting jurisdiction has proven the amount in controversy by a preponderance 8 of the evidence. Id. at 88–89; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at 9 any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). 10 “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in 11 the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 12 The court has reviewed the Notice of Removal and is presently unable to 13 conclude it has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a). In particular, 14 and without limitation, the court finds that the allegations in the Notice of Removal do 15 not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy 16 exceeds $75,000. 17 II. CAFA Amount in Controversy Requirement 18 The Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) vests original jurisdiction in district 19 courts over a purported class action if all the following requirements are met: (1) the 20 amount in controversy exceeds $5 million; (2) at least one putative class member is a 21 citizen of a state different from any defendant; and (3) the putative class exceeds 100 22 members. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d)(2), (5). The removing defendant bears the burden of 23 establishing federal jurisdiction, “including any applicable amount in controversy 24 requirement.” Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 , 682–83 (9th Cir. 25 2006) (citing Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). However, 26 unlike cases removed under diversity jurisdiction, “no antiremoval presumption 27 attends cases invoking CAFA.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 28 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). 1 A notice removing a case from state court to federal court must include “a 2 plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional 3 threshold.” Id. Where a party contests or the court questions another party’s 4 allegations concerning the amount in controversy, both sides shall submit proof and 5 the court must decide whether the party asserting jurisdiction has proven the amount 6 in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 88–89; see 28 U.S.C. 7 § 1447 (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks 8 subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”). 9 This procedure applies equally to the amount in controversy requirement in 10 CAFA actions. 11 When plaintiffs … have prepared a complaint that does not assert the amount in controversy, or that affirmatively states that the amount in [12] controversy does not exceed $5 million, if a defendant wants to pursue a 13 federal forum under CAFA, that defendant in a jurisdictional dispute has the burden to put forward evidence showing that the amount in [14] controversy exceeds $5 million … and to persuade the court that the 15 estimate of damages in controversy is a reasonable one. 16 Ibarra v. Manheim Invs. Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015). “Under this 17 system, CAFA’s requirements are to be tested by consideration of real evidence and 18 the reality of what is at stake in the litigation, using reasonable assumptions 19 underlying the … theory of damages exposure.” Id. As a result, the party asserting 20 jurisdiction in CAFA actions bears the burden to put forward allegations and 21 sufficient evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. 22 The court has reviewed Defendant’s Notice of Removal and is presently unable 23 to conclude it has subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA. In particular, and without 24 limitation, the court finds that the allegations in the Notice of Removal do not 25 demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy 26 exceeds $5 million. 27 / / / 28 / / / | | I. CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing only, 3 | within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be 4 | remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy 5 | does not exceed the jurisdictional threshold. The parties are encouraged to submit 6 | evidence and/or judicially noticeable facts in response to the court’s Order. 7 || Responses shall be limited to ten (10) pages in length. The parties should consider 8 | this Order to be a two-pronged inquiry into the facial and factual sufficiency of 9 | Defendant’s demonstration of jurisdiction. See Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117 , 10 | 1122 (9th Cir. 2014). 1] As it is the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Defendant’s failure to timely 12 | respond to this Order shall result in the remand of this action without further warning. [13] 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. [15] 16 | Dated: August 27, 2025 17 = 5 is FERNANDO‘. AENLLE-ROCHA 19 United States District Judge