1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NICHOLAS KAIR, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00714-FLA (MAAx)

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF 14 SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER 2 Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power 3 authorized by the Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 4 Am.,

(1994); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. District courts are 5 presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the 6 record. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno,

, 342 n. 3 (2006). 7 Additionally, federal courts have an obligation to examine jurisdiction sua sponte 8 before proceeding to the merits of a case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526

, 583 (1999). 10 Federal courts have jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law or 11 where each plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship and the 12 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. 13 §§ 1331, 1332(a). A complaint filed in federal court must contain “a plausible 14 allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart 15 Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens,

, 89 (2014). Where a party 16 contests, or the court questions, a party’s allegations concerning the amount in 17 controversy, both sides shall submit proof, and the court must decide whether the 18 party asserting jurisdiction has proven the amount in controversy by a preponderance 19 of the evidence.

at 88–89; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at 20 any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). 21 “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in 22 the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). 23 The court has reviewed the Notice of Removal, Dkt. 1, and is presently unable 24 to conclude it has subject matter jurisdiction under

(a). In particular, 25 and without limitation, the court finds that the allegations in the Notice of Removal do 26 not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy 27 exceeds $75,000. In the Notice of Removal, Defendant Ford Motor Company 28 (“Defendant”) states: “Plaintiffs claim that they have been damaged in the amount of | | $97,027.76 at a minimum.” Dkt. 1 at 3 (citing Dkt. 1, Ex. A (Complaint) § 16 (“On 2 | July 29, 2022, Plaintiff(s) entered into a warranty contract with [Defendant] regarding 3 || a 2022 Ford Mach-E, VIN: 3FMTK4SEINMA007711 [], which Plaintiff(s) purchased 4 | for a total price of $97,027.76.”)). Defendant, however, does not attach any warranty 5 | contract, or otherwise submit evidence that it sold Plaintiffs a 2022 Ford Mach-E for 6 | $97,027.76. See generally Dkt. 1. 7 Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing within 8 | fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order why this action should not be remanded 9 | for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy does not 10 | exceed the jurisdictional threshold. The parties are encouraged to submit evidence 11 | and/or judicially noticeable facts in response to the court’s Order. Responses shall be 12 | limited to ten (10) pages in length. The parties should consider this Order to be a two- 13 | pronged inquiry into the facial and factual sufficiency of Defendant’s demonstration 14 | of jurisdiction. See Leite v. Crane Co.,

(9th Cir. 2014). 15 As Defendant is the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Defendant’s failure to 16 | respond timely and adequately to this Order shall result in remand of the action 17 | without further notice. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 | Dated: February 7, 2025 02 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA 33 United States District Judge

24 25 26 27 28