1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EUGENIO VILLALOBOS, Case No. 2:22-cv-03901-FLA (AGRx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF 14 SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION FCA US, LLC, 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 original jurisdiction where an action presents a federal 9 question under

, or where diversity of citizenship exists under 28

. Of relevance here, claims filed under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty 11 Act do not trigger federal question jurisdiction unless the amount in controversy is 12 equal to or greater than “the sum or value of $50,000 (exclusive of interests and costs) 13 computed on the basis of all claims to be determined in this suit.” 28 U.S.C. 14 § 2310(d)(3)(B); Khachatryan v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01290-PA 15 (PDx),

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2021). 16 A complaint filed in federal court must contain “a plausible allegation that the 17 amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart v. Cherokee Basin 18 Operating Co., LLC v. Owens,

, 89 (2014). Where a party contests, or a 19 court questions, a party’s allegations concerning the amount in controversy, both sides 20 shall submit proof, and the court must decide whether the party asserting jurisdiction 21 has proven the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence.

at 88– 22 89; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks 23 subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). The same procedures 24 apply when the existence of complete diversity of the parties is called into question. 25 See, e.g., Verb Tech. Co., Inc. v. Baker & Hostetler LLP, Case No. 2:21-cv-06500- 26 ODW (MAAx),

(C.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2021). 27 The court has reviewed the Complaint and is presently unable to conclude it has 28 subject matter jurisdiction. In particular, and without limitation, the court finds that | the allegations in the Complaint do not demonstrate by a preponderance of the 2 | evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000. 3 The parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing only, within 4 || fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be 5 | dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy 6 | does not exceed the jurisdictional threshold. The parties are encouraged to submit 7 || evidence and/or judicially noticeable facts in response to the court’s Order. 8 | Responses shall be limited to ten (10) pages in length. The parties should consider 9 | this Order to be a two-pronged inquiry into the facial and factual sufficiency of 10 | Plaintiff's demonstration of jurisdiction. See Leite v. Crane Co.,

, 1122 11 | (9th Cir. 2014). 12 As Plaintiff is the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Plaintiff's failure to 13 | respond timely and adequately to this Order shall result in the dismissal of the action 14 | without further notice. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 | Dated: August 29, 2023 19 20 FERNANDO'L. AENLLE-ROCHA 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28