UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. ED CV 19-2023-DMG (SHKx) Date January 15, 2020

Title Arthur Mariscal, et al. v. Flagstar Bank, FSB Page 1 of 1

Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

KANE TIEN NOT REPORTED Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT DISMISS THIS ACTION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Plaintiffs Arthur Mariscal and Catherine Mariscal filed this putative class action on October 22, 2019 and asserted that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). See Compl. (citing

(d)(2)) [Doc. # 1]. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss (“MTD”) Plaintiffs’ Complaint on November 18, 2019, but did not address subject matter jurisdiction. See MTD [Doc. # 17].

Under CAFA, the Court has original jurisdiction over a class action “if the class has more than 100 members, the parties are minimally diverse, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens,

, 84–85 (2014). Plaintiffs, as the party invoking the court’s jurisdiction, have the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the putative class satisfies the CAFA requirements. Lewis v. Verizon Communications, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2010). Based on the Complaint’s allegations, Plaintiffs do not appear to have satisfied CAFA’s amount in controversy requirement.

(d)(2).

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiffs to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs must file a written response to this Order no later than January 23, 2020. Defendant shall file its response to Plaintiffs’ filing, if any, no later than January 30, 2020. Neither response may exceed seven pages. Thereafter, the Court will determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over this action at the same time that it decides Defendant’s MTD.

IT IS SO ORDERED.