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

Case No. 5:24-cv-01703-SSS-DTBx Date September 9, 2024 Title Allied World Surplus Lines Insurance Co. v. Arya Security Services, Inc.

Present: The Honorable SUNSHINE S. SYKES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Irene Vazquez Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING THE CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION [Dkt. 13]

Plaintiff Allied World Surplus Lines Insurance Company (the “Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint Against Arya Security Services, Inc. on August 12, 2024. [Dkt. 1]. Relevant here, Plaintiff alleges in conclusory fashion that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Id. at 2. Based on Plaintiff’s conclusory allegation, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why this Case Should not be Remanded for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. [Dkt. 10]. Plaintiff filed a Response to the Order to Show Cause (“Response”) on August 30, 2024. [Dkt. 13].

Federal district courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.,

(2006). For diversity jurisdiction to exist, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000.

(a). This amount is generally determined from the face of the pleadings. See Crum v. Circus Circus Enters.,

(9th Cir. 2000). Conclusory allegations of the amount in controversy are insufficient to invoke diversity jurisdiction. Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co.,

, 1090–91 (9th Cir. 2003). The party who invokes jurisdiction bears the burden of demonstrating its existence. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

(1994).

Here, Plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that that amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 is insufficient to invoke diversity jurisdiction. The Complaint’s prayer for relief in addition to the information provided in the Response is not enough to reasonably infer the amount in controversy is met. Without more, Plaintiff has failed to carry its burden of showing this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, the case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.