1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL REESE, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00251-FLA (JPRx)

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER REMANDING ACTION FOR 13 v. LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION [DKT. 18] 14 JETBLUE AIRWAYS 15 CORPORATION, et al., 16 Defendants. 17

18 19 On March 28, 2025, the court Ordered the parties to Show Cause (“OSC”) why 20 the action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to an 21 insufficient amount in controversy. Dkt. 18. The court provided the parties 14 days 22 to respond and cautioned Defendant that, as the party asserting federal jurisdiction, its 23 “failure to timely respond to the [OSC] shall result in the remand of this action 24 without further warning.” Id. at 3. Defendant did not file a response to the OSC. 25 Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing only “power 26 authorized by the Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 27 Am.,

(1994); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Courts are presumed to 28 lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record. See | | DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno,

, 342 n. 3 (2006). Additionally, federal 2 || courts have an obligation to examine jurisdiction sua sponte before proceeding to the 3 || merits of a case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co.,

(1999). 4 Federal courts have jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law or 5 || where each plaintiff's citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship and the 6 | amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. 7 |) §§ 1331, 1332(a). A complaint filed in federal court must contain “a plausible 8 | allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart 9 || Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens,

, 89 (2014). Where a party 10 | contests, or the court questions, a party’s allegations concerning the amount in 11 | controversy, both sides shall submit proof, and the court must decide whether the 12 | party asserting jurisdiction has proven the amount in controversy by a preponderance 13 | of the evidence. /d. at 88-89; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at 14 | any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). 15 | “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in 16 | the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). 17 As Defendant did not respond to the OSC, Defendant has not met its burden to 18 | establish the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum for diversity 19 | jurisdiction. The court, therefore, REMANDS the action to the Los Angeles County 20 | Superior Court, Case Number 24TRCV03283. All dates and deadlines in this court 21 | are VACATED. The clerk of the court shall close the action administratively. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 | Dated: April 23, 2025 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge 27 28