1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYA TOROSSIAN, Case No. 2:23-cv-01453-FLA (AFMx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING ACTION 13 v. 14 1-800-PACK-RAT, LLC, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 RULING 2 Defendant removed this action based on alleged diversity jurisdiction. See Dkt. 3 1. The court ordered the parties to show cause why this action should not be 4 remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. 24. The court received and 5 reviewed both parties’ Response to its Order to Show Cause. Dkts. 25 (“Pl. Br.”), 26 6 (“Defs. Br.”). 7 Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power 8 authorized by the Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 9 Am.,

(1994); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. District courts are 10 presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the 11 record. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno,

, 342 n. 3 (2006). 12 Additionally, federal courts have an obligation to examine jurisdiction sua sponte 13 before proceeding to the merits of a case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526

, 583 (1999). 15 Pursuant to

(a), federal courts have diversity jurisdiction 16 where each plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship and the 17 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Thus, a 18 notice removing a case from state court to federal court based on diversity must 19 include “a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the 20 jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574

, 89 (2014). Where “the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the 22 defendant’s allegation” concerning the amount in controversy, “both sides [shall] 23 submit proof,” and the court must decide whether the defendant has demonstrated the 24 amount in controversy “by a preponderance of the evidence.”

at 88–89. Federal 25 courts “strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction,” and “federal 26 jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first 27 instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). 28 / / / I Defendant has the burden to justify this court’s exercise of jurisdiction. See 2 | Gaus,

. Plaintiff argues the action should be remanded. See PI. Br. 3 | Defendant argues the action satisfies the amount in controversy requirement because: 4 | (i) Plaintiff served Defendant with a Statement of Damages alleging total damages of 3 | $1,514.224.80, and (11) Plaintiff made a settlement demand of $130,000. Defs. Br. at 6 | 4. Such statements are speculative and do not constitute credible evidence sufficient 7 || to establish the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds $75,000. Further, 8 | the court finds nothing in the record in this action establishing by a preponderance of 9 | the evidence that the jurisdictional threshold has been met. 10 Thus, the court determines Defendant has failed to demonstrate the amount in 11 | controversy exceeds $75,000 and finds that diversity jurisdiction does not exist. The 12 | court, therefore, REMANDS the action to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, 13 | Case No. 22STCV25483. All dates and deadlines are VACATED. The clerk of the 14 | court shall administratively close this action. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 | Dated: July 17, 2023 19 20 FERNANDO. AENLLE-ROCHA 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28