Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00392/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00392-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tomery Darling
Defendant
Michael Powell
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

MICHAEL POWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOMERY DARLING,

Defendant.

No. 2:17-cv-0392 KJM DB PS

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On February 22, 2017, defendant Tomery Darling filed a notice of removal of this action 

from the Placer County Superior Court. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant Darling is proceeding pro se. 

Accordingly, the matter has been referred to the undersigned for all purposes encompassed by 

Local Rule 302(c)(21). 

Jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry that must precede the adjudication of any case before 

the district court. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 

1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may adjudicate 

only those cases authorized by federal law. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 

377 (1994); Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 136-37 (1992). “Federal courts are presumed 

to lack jurisdiction, ‘unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.’” Casey v. Lewis, 

4 F.3d 1516, 1519 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 

546 (1986)).

Case 2:17-cv-00392-KJM-DB Document 3 Filed 02/27/17 Page 1 of 3
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

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by the court at any time during the 

proceedings. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 

1996). A federal court “ha[s] an independent obligation to address sua sponte whether [it] has 

subject-matter jurisdiction.” Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 1999). It is the 

obligation of the district court “to be alert to jurisdictional requirements.” Grupo Dataflux v. 

Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004). Without jurisdiction, the district court 

cannot decide the merits of a case or order any relief. See Morongo, 858 F.2d at 1380. 

It is well established that the statutes governing removal jurisdiction must be “strictly 

construed against removal.” Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 

1979) (citing Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108 (1941)); see also Syngenta 

Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002); Provincial Gov’t of Martinduque v. Placer 

Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there 

is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 

566 (9th Cir. 1992). “‘The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls on the party invoking 

removal.’” Harris v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 1994) 

(quoting Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 790 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir.1986)); see also Provincial 

Gov’t of Martinduque, 582 F.3d at 1087. 

The basic federal jurisdiction statutes are 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, which confer 

“federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal jurisdiction may also be 

conferred by federal statutes regulating specific subject matter. “[T]he existence of federal 

jurisdiction depends solely on the plaintiff’s claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to 

those claims.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 

1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000).

District courts have diversity jurisdiction only over “all civil actions where the matter in 

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” and the action 

is between: “(1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a 

foreign state; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are 

additional parties; and (4) a foreign state . . . as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different 

Case 2:17-cv-00392-KJM-DB Document 3 Filed 02/27/17 Page 2 of 3
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

States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “To demonstrate citizenship for diversity purposes a party must (a) be 

a citizen of the United States, and (b) be domiciled in a state of the United States.” Lew v. Moss, 

797 F.2d 747, 749 (9th Cir. 1986). “Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between 

the parties-each defendant must be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff.” In re 

Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litigation, 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Here, it appears that plaintiff’s complaint concerns only state law matters pertaining to 

divorce and child custody. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty-one days of the date of this 

order defendant shall show cause in writing as to why this action should not be summarily 

remanded to the Placer County Superior Court due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Dated: February 27, 2017

DLB:6

DB/orders/orders.pro se/powell0392.jx.osc

Case 2:17-cv-00392-KJM-DB Document 3 Filed 02/27/17 Page 3 of 3