Berkley National Insurance Company v. Lawrence Gabriel Nora
2:25-cv-02155
C.D. Cal.May 22, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Berkley National Insurance Company filed suit in the Central District of California against Lawrence Gabriel Nora and others.
- The complaint asserts federal subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
- Under § 1332(a), a federal court’s jurisdiction requires both complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.
- The court sua sponte reviewed the complaint and questioned whether the $75,000 amount in controversy threshold was adequately pleaded.
- The parties were ordered to show cause in writing within fourteen days why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- Plaintiff, as the party asserting jurisdiction, bears the burden of demonstrating subject matter jurisdiction; failure to respond could result in dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether subject matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) | (Yet to be submitted by plaintiff) | (Not yet applicable, court raised issue sua sponte) | Court could not determine; ordered parties to show cause |
| Whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 | Allegations in complaint were insufficient | (Not yet applicable, court raised issue sua sponte) | Amount in controversy not established; further proof required |
| Whether sufficient facts support diversity | (Implied as basis for suit) | (Not yet contested) | Complaint did not yet establish facial or factual sufficiency |
| Appropriate response to inadequate jurisdictional allegations | (Expected to provide evidence) | (Expected to respond if applicable) | Ordered evidence within 14 days; case may be dismissed if not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, only as authorized by Constitution or statute)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006) (jurisdiction must affirmatively appear on record; presumption against it)
- Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (1999) (federal courts must evaluate jurisdiction before merits)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2014) (pleading and proof requirements for amount in controversy in federal court)
- Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2014) (outlines two types of jurisdictional attacks: facial and factual)