1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6

7 KATHLEEN MCINTYRE, Case No. 2:25-cv-00730-MMD-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 9 v.

10 UPS, et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed 13 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Docket No. 4. No response was filed. 14 The Court has a duty to ensure that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute before 15 it, an issue it may raise at any time during the proceedings. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 16 Federal courts have limited jurisdiction and possess only that power authorized by the Constitution 17 and statute. See Rasul v. Bush,

(2004). “A federal court is presumed to lack 18 jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock West, Inc. v. 19 Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation,

, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). “The party 20 asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that the case is properly in federal court.” 21 McCauley v. Ford Motor Co.,

, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing McNutt v. General Motors 22 Acceptance Corp.,

(1936)). 23 As explained in the order to show cause, Plaintiff’s complaint does not establish subject 24 matter jurisdiction. As to diversity jurisdiction, the complaint does not clearly identify the state 25 citizenship of each party and does not show that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. But 26 see

(a). As to federal question jurisdiction, the complaint does not identify a 27 federal cause of action or federal question. But see

. Moreover, Plaintiff failed 28 to respond to the order to show cause to explain how jurisdiction would exist in this case, 1} notwithstanding a warning that “[f]ailure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of 2|| this case.” Docket No. 4 at 2 (emphasis in original). 3 Accordingly, Plaintiff has not met her burden of showing federal subject matter jurisdiction 4] and the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling 5] in an appropriate state court. 6 Dated: May 13, 2025 7 fo A : — a a Nancy J. Koppe * 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 NOTICE 11 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned 12] to this case pursuant to

(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and 13] recommendation must file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen 14] days of being served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 16] F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28