Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fernando Cubillas v. Dav-El Los Angeles

May 26, 2011

FERNANDO CUBILLAS
v.
DAV-EL LOS ANGELES, INC., ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Present: The Honorable Dolly M. Gee, United States District Judge

CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

Title

VALENCIA VALLERY NOT REPORTED

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)

None Present None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS-ORDER REMANDING CASE TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

On December 11, 2009, Plaintiff Fernando Cubillas filed a class action complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendant Dav-El Los Angeles and Does 1 through 50. On April 5, 2011, Plaintiff filed the operative second amended complaint. The second amended complaint names as defendants Dav-El Los Angeles, Dav-El San Francisco, Dav-El Transportation, Inc., Dav-El Services, Inc., Dav-El Reservation Systems, Inc., Dav-El Livery, Inc., Dav-El Worldwide, Dav-El Chauffeured Transportation Network, Dav-El Boston, and Does 7 through 50.

On April 25, 2011, Defendant Dav-El Boston, Inc. removed this action from Los Angeles County Superior Court. Dav-El Boston invokes removal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1453. Because the second amended complaint appeared on its face to fall into one of the exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction,*fn1 on May 4, 2011, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause ("OSC") why this action should not be remanded [Doc. #7].*fn2 The parties filed their responses on May 18, 2011 [Doc. ##8, 12].

Under CAFA, federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over class action suits involving at least 100 class members where there is minimal diversity, i.e., any member of the plaintiff class is diverse from any defendant, and where the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2); United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg., Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv. Workers Int'l Union v. Shell Oil Co., 602 F.3d 1087, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2010). CAFA provides certain exceptions to federal jurisdiction. One of these exceptions, involving a "local controversy," is relevant here:

A district court shall decline to exercise jurisdiction . . .

(A)(i) over a class action in which-

(I) greater than two-thirds of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate are citizens of the State in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.