1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW KATZ, Case No. 2:23-cv-03004-FLA (SKx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF 14 SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION DAVID OLAN, 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.,

(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,

, 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.,

(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,

, 89 (2014). But where 14 a party contests, or a court questions, a party’s allegations concerning the amount in 15 controversy, both sides submit proof, and the court decides whether the party claiming 16 jurisdiction has proven the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. 17

at 88–89; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it 18 lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). The same 19 procedures apply when the existence of complete diversity of the parties is called into 20 question. See, e.g., Verb Tech. Co., Inc. v. Baker & Hostetler LLP, Case No. 2:21-cv- 21 06500-ODW (MAAx),

(C.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2021). 22 The court has reviewed Plaintiff Matthew Katz’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint (Dkt. 23 1) and it is not apparent the court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 24

(a). In particular, and without limitation, the court notes that the 25 Complaint contains scant evidence of the amount in controversy. 26 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE, in writing only, within 27 fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be 28 dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants David Olan, Olan Law, | | and Kenzi Levine may, but are not required to, file a written response within fourteen 2 || days. The parties are encouraged to submit evidence and/or judicially noticeable facts 3 | in response to the court’s Order. The parties should consider the Order to be an 4 || inquiry into both the facial and factual sufficiency of Plaintiff's demonstration of 5 | diversity jurisdiction. See Leite v. Crane Co.,

(9th Cir. 2014). 6 As Plaintiff is the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Plaintiffs failure to 7 || respond timely and adequately to this Order shall result in the dismissal of the action 8 | without prejudice, without further notice. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 | Dated: July 18, 2023 13 4 a ZA -ROCHA 1S United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28