# Xiangbin Long v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

> District Court, C.D. California · July 7, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11090895

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** July 7, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11090895

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 XIANGBIN LONG, Case No. 2:24-cv-02402 CV (KESx)

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
13 v. DISMISSED WITHOUT
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al. PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF
14 SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

15 Defendants.
16
17
18 Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power
19 authorized by the Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,
20 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. District courts are presumed to
21 lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record. See
22 DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n. 3 (2006). Additionally, federal
23 courts have an obligation to examine jurisdiction sua sponte before proceeding to the
24 merits of a case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). When
25 a district court determines that there is no subject matter jurisdiction in a non-removal
26 case, dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. See Wasson v. Brown, 316 F. App’x 663,
27 664 (9th Cir. 2009); Parker v. Ebay, No. CV 24-1863-JFW (JCx), 2024 WL 1484598, at
28 *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2024).
Plaintiff Xiangbin Long’s (“Plaintiff’) First Amended Complaint (Doc. # 33,
2 ||“FAC”) does not establish jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. “The district
3 ||courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy
4 exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between —
5 || citizens of different States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Plaintiff has not alleged that the
6 ||amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and
7 |}costs. The amount in controversy is not “facially evident” from the pleading, and
8 || “[clonclusory allegations as to the amount in controversy are insufficient.” Matheson v.
9 || Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2003). Nor can Plaintiff
10 || establish jurisdiction based on a federal question, as the FAC includes only two claims,
11 based on California law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have
12 || original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treatises of
13 United States.”).
14 Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing only,
15 || within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be
16 || dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Responses shall be
17 || limited to ten (10) pages in length.
18
19 IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21 ||DATED: 7/7/25 lypatiar, Valeng □□□□
22 HOW. CYNTHIA VALENZUELA
23 SEE EE

24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11090895. Public record. Not legal advice.