1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CYNTHIA IZQUIERDO, individually Case No. 8:24-cv-00937-JWH-DFM and on behalf of all others similarly 12 situated, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 Plaintiff, REGARDING SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 14 v.

15 MULTI COLOR CORPORATION, an Ohio Corporation, 16 WS PACKAGING GROUP, INC., a California Corporation, and 17 DOES 1-20, inclusive,

18 Defendants.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Plaintiff Cynthia Izquierdo initially filed this action in Orange County 2 Superior Court.1 On May 1, 2023, Defendant WS Packaging Group, Inc. 3 removed this case to this Court pursuant the Class Action Fairness Act 4 (“CAFA”) and

(d)(2), 1441, and 1453.2 5 As an initial matter in every case, the Court must ensure that it possesses 6 subject matter jurisdiction. District courts have original jurisdiction over class 7 actions in which: 8 (A) any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different 9 from any defendant; 10 (B) any member of a class of plaintiffs is a foreign state or a citizen or 11 subject of a foreign state and any defendant is a citizen of a State; or 12 (C) any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State and any 13 defendant is a foreign state or a citizen or subject of a foreign state. 14

(d)(2). The party invoking the Court’s jurisdiction bears “the 15 burden of demonstrating that the court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear an 16 action.” Nguyen v. Cache Creek Casino Resort,

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 17 Jan. 4, 2021), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Hung Nguyen v. Cache 18 Creek Casino Resort,

(E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2021) (citing Kokkonen 19 v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,

(1994)). 20 The issue here is the diversity-of-citizenship requirement. Izquierdo is a 21 California citizen.3 Though the Notice of Removal states that WS Packaging is a 22 citizen of Wisconsin and Illinois—and not of California4—the case caption 23 described WS Packaging as “a California Corporation.” No party has filed its 24

25 1 Notice of Removal [ECF No. 1]. 26 2 See generally

27 3 Id. at ¶ 17. 1|| Disclosure Statement under Rule 7.1(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, so the Court cannot determine whether the parties are actually 3|| diverse. 4 In view of the Court’s concerns that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction 5|| over the instant action, the Court concludes that it would be an inefficient use of || judicial resources to adjudicate the instant action any further without firmly || establishing that removal was both substantively proper under

8&|| and procedurally correct under

. 9 Therefore, on its own motion, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 10 1. All parties are DIRECTED to file, no later than June 14, 2024, her 11|| or its respective Rule 7.1(a)(2) Disclosure Statements, as well as simultaneous 12|| supplemental memoranda (including supporting evidence, to the extent necessary) explaining whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the 14|| instant action. 15 2. Anin-person hearing on this Order to Show Cause is SET for 16 || June 28, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9D of the Ronald Reagan Federal 17|| Building and U.S. Courthouse, 411 W. 4th Street, Santa Ana, California. 18 3. The Scheduling Conference is CONTINUED to June 28, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22|| Dated:__ May 29, 2024 23 anne STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28