Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Martha Ritchie is the plaintiff in a civil action against Sodexo, Inc., and other defendants pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California as Case No. 2:26-cv-10665. The case is before that court on a Notice of Removal that invokes diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a). That statute requires that each plaintiff's citizenship be diverse from each defendant's and that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. The order does not describe the underlying claims, the damages sought, or any party's citizenship.
On October 27, 2026, the court acted on its own initiative before reaching the merits. It reiterated that federal courts have limited jurisdiction, that district courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record, and that courts must examine jurisdiction sua sponte. It also noted that a federal pleading must plausibly allege an amount in controversy above the threshold, and that when a party contests or the court questions that allegation, both sides submit proof and the court decides by a preponderance of the evidence whether the party asserting jurisdiction has carried its burden. Citing Gaus v. Miles, Inc., it added that federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.
The Court’s Holding
This is a preliminary show-cause order, not a ruling on remand. Having reviewed the Notice of Removal, the court stated that it is presently unable to conclude that it has subject matter jurisdiction under section 1332(a). In particular, and without limitation, it found that the allegations in the Notice of Removal do not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. That is a provisional assessment of the removal papers; the court did not find that the amount actually falls below the threshold.
The court ordered the parties to show cause, in writing only, within fourteen days why the action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy does not exceed the threshold. The parties are encouraged to submit evidence or judicially noticeable facts, and responses are limited to ten pages. The court directed the parties to treat the order as a two-pronged inquiry into the facial and factual sufficiency of the Defendant's showing of jurisdiction, citing Leite v. Crane Co. Because the Defendant is the party asserting federal jurisdiction, the order states that its failure to respond timely and adequately will result in remand without further notice.
Nothing has been remanded or dismissed. The court has not decided whether jurisdiction exists, and the result depends on the written responses. The order does not address any merits question or any other basis for federal jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways
- A federal court may question the amount in controversy on its own initiative, and when it does, both sides are expected to submit proof.
- The removing defendant, as the party asserting federal jurisdiction, must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
- The court invited evidence and judicially noticeable facts, so a defendant should be ready to support its amount-in-controversy showing with more than the allegations in the Notice of Removal.
- Doubt about the right of removal is resolved against federal jurisdiction under the authority the court cited.
- Responses are due in fourteen days and capped at ten pages, and a late or inadequate response by the Defendant will lead to remand without further notice.
Why It Matters
This is a trial-court order in a single removed case. It is a procedural order that sets no precedent and carries no binding weight, but it shows how a judge in the Central District of California may test an amount-in-controversy allegation before the case moves forward. The order's two-pronged framing, drawn from Leite, directs attention both to what the removal papers allege and to whether the facts support it.
For plaintiffs, the order shows that the court may consider remand without a motion. For defendants, it shows that a bare valuation in a notice of removal may not suffice and that a prompt, evidence-supported response is needed. What remains open is whether the Defendant can carry its burden: if not, remand follows on the order's terms; if so, the case can proceed to the merits.