The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. —_5:25-cv-00897-SRM-SPx Date April 21, 2025
Title Valley Outdoor Media Grp., Inc. v. Becker Boards, LLC
PRESENT:
HONORABLE SERENA R. MURILLO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Melissa H. Kunig Not Reported
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:
None Present None Present
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE
SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION
Plaintiff Valley Outdoor Media Group, Inc. filed this breach of contract case against Defendant
Becker Boards, LLC in Riverside County Superior Court on February 18, 2025. Defendant timely
removed the case and alleges the Court has diversity jurisdiction over the matter. (Dkt. 1, Notice of
Removal 4 7—16.) Defendant contends there is complete diversity because Plaintiff is a California
corporation, (/d. §] 10), and Defendant is a California limited liability company whose members are
citizens of Arizona and Florida, (Jd. § 11). Defendant further alleges the amount in controversy has been
met because the “[c]omplaint seeks damages under certain agreements related to the parties that have
annual payment obligations in excess of $75,000.” Ud. § 8).
Federal district courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter
jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S.
500, 514 (2006). There are two types of subject matter jurisdiction: federal question jurisdiction and
diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Where, as here, an action is removed based on diversity,
complete diversity must exist at the time of removal. Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 790 F.2d 769,
773 (9th Cir. 1986). For diversity jurisdiction to exist, the amount in controversy must exceed
$75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). This amount is generally determined from the face of the
pleadings. See Crum v. Circus Circus Enters., 231 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000). Conclusory
allegations of the amount in controversy are insufficient to invoke diversity jurisdiction. Matheson v.
Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2003). Because the removal statute is
strictly construed against removal jurisdiction, “[f]ederal 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 party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of showing subject matter jurisdiction
exists. See Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014). A district court must remand the
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. —_5:25-cv-00897-SRM-SPx Date April 21, 2025
Title Valley Outdoor Media Grp., Inc. v. Becker Boards, LLC
case to state court if it appears at any time before final judgment that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Here, Defendant has not adequately alleged that diversity jurisdiction exists because Defendant
states in a conclusory fashion that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and the Court could not
infer from the excerpts of the attached contractual agreements that the alleged damages caused by the
purported breach would amount to more than $75,000.
Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing why this case should not
be remanded to Riverside County Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by April 28,
2025. A hearing is set on this matter for May 1, 2025, at 1:30 p.m., via Zoom videoconference.
Initials of Deputy Clerk mku
ce: