Martin v. U.S. Small Business Administration, C.D. Cal. No. 2:26-cv-03714, Doc. 48, order on ex parte applications (June 25, 2026)

Summary

Civil Minutes - General, Document 48, filed 06/25/26, in Travis Edward Martin v. United States Small Business Administration, Case No. 2:26-cv-03714-WLH-DFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, before the Honorable Wesley L. Hsu, United States District Judge, dated June 25, 2026. The order addresses Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application to Discharge or Vacate OSC Deadline [41] and Defendants' Ex Parte Application to Stay Defendants' obligation to answer the First Amended Complaint [45]. The Court denies Plaintiff's Application and grants Defendants' Application. It states that Defendants' obligation to answer is stayed until the Court discharges its Order to Show Cause re Subject Matter Jurisdiction, and that Defendants shall have twenty-one (21) days to respond if any portion of the First Amended Complaint survives.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Issuer: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Document type: Order
Date: 2026-06-25
Case: Travis Edward Martin v. United States Small Business Administration
Case number: 2:26-cv-03714-WLH-DFM

Cite this document

“Martin v. U.S. Small Business Administration, C.D. Cal. No. 2:26-cv-03714, Doc. 48, order on ex parte applications (June 25, 2026).” U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. 2:26-cv-03714-WLH-DFM, dated 2026-06-25. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/martin-v-u-s-small-business-administration-c-d-cal-no-2-26-cv-03714-do-3001de0b54/, SHA-256 3a40e02af684a7eadd7234c25ecde02777c943756c104fd9b352d00a3303d33d.

Full text

Case 2:26-cv-03714-WLH-DFM Document 48 Filed 06/25/26 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#:616
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. 2:26-cv-03714-WLH-DFM Date June 25, 2026

Title Travis Edward Martin v. United States Small Business Administration

Present: The Honorable WESLEY L. HSU, United States District Judge
Claudia Garcia-Marquez None
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None None
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO DISCHARGE OR VACATE OSC DEADLINE
[41] AND DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY
DEFENDENTS’ OBLIGATION TO ANSWER THE FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT PENDING RESOLUTION OF THE
COURTS’ ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE [45]
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to Discharge or Vacate
Order to Show Cause, or Alternatively to Stay OSC Deadline and Require Defendants to
Present Any Abstention or Preclusion Challenge by Proper Motion against the First
Amended Complaint (the “Plaintiff’s Application”) (Plaintiff’s Application, Dkt. No. 41),
and Defendants’ Ex Parte Application to Stay Defendants’ Obligation to Answer the First
Amended Complaint Pending Resolution of the Court’s Order to Show Cause
(“Defendants’ Application”), (Defendants’ Application, Dkt. No. 45). Further, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78 and Local Rule 7-15, the Court finds this matter
appropriate for decision without oral argument. The Court addresses each ex parte
application in turn.

Page 1 of 3 CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case 2:26-cv-03714-WLH-DFM Document 48 Filed 06/25/26 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#:617
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

On June 2, 2026, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause. (Order to Show
Cause, Dkt. No. 40). The Court ordered “Plaintiff to show cause in writing on a claim-
by-claim basis … why Plaintiff’s claims should not be dismissed for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction under the Younger doctrine of abstention and/or why Plaintiff’s claims
is not barred as res judicata and/or collateral estoppel (as applicable).” (Id. at 4). The
Court also ordered Defendants to file a response on a claim-by-claim basis within
fourteen (14) days of receiving Plaintiff’s response. (Id.).
Plaintiff’s Application seeks to discharge or vacate the Order to Show Cause.
(Plaintiff’s Application at 2). In the alternative, Plaintiff requests the Court stay the
deadline of his Response to the Order to Show Cause and order “Defendants to present
any abstention or preclusion challenge to the FAC through ordinary motion practice.”
(Id. at 13). Plaintiff argues that he “should not be forced to litigate against the Court
itself” and that “[i]n an adversarial system, defendants bring motions, identify the
defenses they choose to assert, and carry the burden of showing how those defenses apply
to the operative pleading.” (Id. at 4).
But Plaintiff fails to understand or acknowledge that district courts have limited
jurisdiction. As courts of limited jurisdiction, federal courts possess subject matter
jurisdiction only over matters “authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). It is well-settled that 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); see also Virgin v. County of San Luis Obispo, 201 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th
Cir. 2000) (affirming dismissal of action pursuant to district court’s “order to show cause
why the action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction”).
Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Ashoff v. City of

Page 2 of 3 CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case 2:26-cv-03714-WLH-DFM Document 48 Filed 06/25/26 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#:618
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Ukiah, 130 F.3d 409, 410 (9th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s
Application.
On June 18, 2026, Defendants’ Application was filed requesting the Court stay
their obligation to answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint until
twenty-one (21) days after the Court rules on the Order to Show Cause. (Defendants’
Application at 5). Defendants assert that without the stay, they would be “required to
answer a complaint the Court has flagged for potential dismissal on jurisdictional
grounds, before those questions are briefed or decided,” because their Answers are due
on June 30, 2026, two days before Plaintiff’s Response to the Order to Show Cause is
Due, i.e., July 2, 2026. (Defendants’ Application at 4, 8). A court must examine “the
competing interests which will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay.”
Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing CMAX, Inc. v. Hall,
300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)). The relevant interests are: (1) “the possible damage
which may result from the granting of a stay,” (2) “the hardship or inequity which a party
may suffer in being required to go forward,” and (3) “the orderly cause of justice
measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of
law which could be expected to result from a stay.” Id. (quoting CMAX, 300 F.2d at
268). Having considered these interests, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Application.
Defendants’ obligation to answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint
is stayed until the Court discharges the Court’s Order to Show Cause re Subject Matter
Jurisdiction. If any portion of the First Amended Complaint survives the Order to Show
Cause, Defendants shall have twenty-one (21) days to respond.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 3 of 3 CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

File and source

File: 48-stay-order.pdf
Size: 146,170 bytes
SHA-256: 3a40e02af684a7eadd7234c25ecde02777c943756c104fd9b352d00a3303d33d
Our copy: 48-stay-order.pdf
Original: storage.courtlistener.com