Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01017/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01017-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RODOLFO RAYGOZA, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

GPR LOGISTICS, INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-1017 KJM AC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 This matter came on for a hearing on plaintiff’s motion for entry of a default judgment. 

ECF No. 11. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. ECF No. 10. 

Immediately prior to the hearing, counsel for plaintiff submitted a stipulated judgment signed by 

the parties. Because the complaint alleges diversity jurisdiction but seeks damages below the 

statutory threshold, it appears that this court lacks jurisdiction to enter default judgement or 

approve the proposed stipulated judgment. 

I. FEDERAL JURISDICTION 

 The court has a sua sponte obligation to ensure that it has subject matter jurisdiction over 

a case. Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002). “If the court determines at 

any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 12(h)(3). 

Diversity jurisdiction applies only when the amount in controversy “exceeds the sum or 

Case 2:15-cv-01017-KJM-AC Document 15 Filed 09/24/15 Page 1 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” and the case is between citizens of different 

states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 306 (2006) (“Congress 

empowered federal district courts to adjudicate civil actions between ‘citizens of different States’ 

where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000”) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1)). There is 

no federal jurisdiction if the amount in controversy is less than the jurisdictional minimum, and 

there is no other basis for federal jurisdiction. See Hymer v. Chai, 407 F.2d 136, 137 (9th 

Cir. 1969) (affirming dismissal on jurisdictional grounds where plaintiff’s loss of consortium 

claim “fell below the monetary minimum necessary to sustain federal diversity jurisdiction”). 

“The amount in controversy includes the amount of damages in dispute, as well as attorney’s fees, 

if authorized by statute or contract.” Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976, 980 (9th 

Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 822 (2006). 

 Here, the complaint alleges that plaintiff’s damages for breach of contract are $51,167.00. 

ECF No. 1 at 3. Nowhere does the complaint allege that, despite the damages amount, the total 

amount in controversy would exceed $75,000. This court appears to lack subject matter 

jurisdiction since, “‘upon the face of the complaint, it is obvious that the suit cannot involve the 

necessary amount.’” Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 

1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 

283, 292 (1938)). 

 At the hearing on this motion, plaintiff’s counsel conceded that the amount in controversy 

was less than $75,000, and offered no explanation for why the complaint was filed in federal 

district court. In light of counsel’s concession, her failure to offer any explanation for filing the 

complaint in federal court, and the fact that the complaint was filed without a valid jurisdictional 

basis, it appears that the complaint was filed in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). 

II. MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

 In the motion for a default judgment, plaintiff asserted that the claimed damages together 

with attorney’s fees, totaled $53,107.1 See Kroske, 432 F.3d at 980 (“[t]he amount in controversy 

 

1

 Even if pre-judgment interest and costs are included, the amount in controversy is $59,868.92, 

(continued...) 

Case 2:15-cv-01017-KJM-AC Document 15 Filed 09/24/15 Page 2 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3

includes the amount of damages in dispute, as well as attorney's fees, if authorized by statute or 

contract”). Therefore, even at the time of filing the motion for default judgment, the amount in 

controversy was still substantially less than the jurisdiction minimum. Plainly, this court cannot 

enter a default judgment in a case where there is no federal jurisdiction. See Gregorian v. 

Izvestia, 871 F.2d 1515, 1522 (9th Cir.) (“[t]he district court therefore correctly granted 

defendants' motion to set aside the default judgment, and properly dismissed the libel claim for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction”), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 891 (1989). It therefore appears that 

this motion was also presented in violation of Rule 11. 

III. STIPULATION 

 On the day of the hearing in this matter, plaintiff presented to the court a “Stipulated 

Judgment” and proposed order. There is much that is wrong with this stipulation. First, like the 

motion for default judgment, it asks this court to enter a judgment in a case over which it has no 

jurisdiction. 

 Second, the stipulation is signed by defendant Johal Rachpal (aka Rachhpal Johal), pro se, 

on behalf of himself, and purportedly on behalf of himself “as President of GPR Logistics, Inc., 

a[n] Oregon corporation.” Thus the document asks the court to give its imprimatur to a 

stipulation in which the pro se defendant purports to represent a defendant corporation. While the 

parties may conduct whatever lawful business they wish outside of court, a business entity “may 

appear only by an attorney” in this court. E.D. Cal. R. 183(a). Accordingly, even if this court 

had jurisdiction, it would not “So Order” a stipulation in which a pro se party purports to sign on 

behalf of a defendant corporation. The court is disturbed that plaintiff’s counsel would obtain 

such a stipulation from parties that are not represented by counsel, even though plaintiff’s counsel 

knew, or reasonably should have known, that the court has no jurisdiction to enter such a 

judgment. 

//// 

 

see ECF No. 11 at 4, and still under the jurisdictional minimum. In any event, those amounts are 

not properly included in the “amount in controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (amount in 

controversy must be “exclusive of interest and costs”). 

Case 2:15-cv-01017-KJM-AC Document 15 Filed 09/24/15 Page 3 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4

III. CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing, within 14 days from the date of 

this order, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction; 

 2. Plaintiff’s counsel, Georgia A. Stearns, Esq., is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in 

writing, within 14 days from the date of this order, why she should not be sanctioned under 

Rule 11 for filing a federal court complaint and a motion for default judgment in a case which 

plainly lacks a basis for federal jurisdiction.2

DATED: September 23, 2015 

 

2

 If such sanctions are ordered, they will be payable by counsel herself, not by her client, and 

counsel will be ordered not to bill her client in any way for the sanctions. 

Case 2:15-cv-01017-KJM-AC Document 15 Filed 09/24/15 Page 4 of 4