Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02911/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02911-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 195
Nature of Suit: Contract Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

– 1 – 16cv2911

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUANCA LLC,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-cv-02911-BAS(WVG)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

WOODN INDUSTRIES GROUP, et 

al.,

Defendants.

On November 29, 2016, Plaintiff Juanca LLC commenced this action raising 

tort claims for products liability and negligence. (Compl. ¶¶ 15–27, ECF No. 1.) The 

next day, the Court issued an order to show cause as to why this action should not be 

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 3.) The Court provided 

Plaintiff with a December 16, 2016, deadline to respond. (Id.) Plaintiff has failed to 

file a response. 

Accordingly, the Court finds dismissing this action is appropriate on two bases. 

First, dismissal pursuant to this Court’s inherent authority is appropriate because 

Plaintiff has failed to comply with a court order. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 

Case 3:16-cv-02911-BAS-WVG Document 4 Filed 01/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
– 2 – 16cv2911

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

1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court reaches this conclusion after weighing the 

appropriate factors and having already warned Plaintiff that this action would be 

dismissed without prejudice if it did not respond to the Court’s order to show cause. 

See id. at 1262 (“[A] district court’s warning to a party that [its] failure to obey the 

court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the ‘consideration of alternatives’ 

requirement.”). Second, the Court finds dismissal for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction is warranted. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 

375, 377 (1994) (noting “[i]t is to be presumed that a cause lies outside” the limited 

jurisdiction of federal courts, “and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon 

the party asserting jurisdiction”). 

In light of the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 12, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02911-BAS-WVG Document 4 Filed 01/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2