ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

CYNTHIA BASHANT, District Judge.

On November 29, 2016, Plaintiff Juanca LLC commenced this action raising tort claims for products liability and negligence. (Compl. ¶¶ 15-27, ECF No. 1.) The next day, the Court issued an order to show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 3.) The Court provided Plaintiff with a December 16, 2016, deadline to respond. (Id.) Plaintiff has failed to file a response.

Accordingly, the Court finds dismissing this action is appropriate on two bases. First, dismissal pursuant to this Court's inherent authority is appropriate because Plaintiff has failed to comply with a court order. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court reaches this conclusion after weighing the appropriate factors and having already warned Plaintiff that this action would be dismissed without prejudice if it did not respond to the Court's order to show cause. See id. at 1262 ("[A] district court's warning to a party that [its] failure to obey the court's order will result in dismissal can satisfy the `consideration of alternatives' requirement."). Second, the Court finds dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is warranted. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (noting "[i]t is to be presumed that a cause lies outside" the limited jurisdiction of federal courts, "and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction").

In light of the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.