The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
On April 14, 2011, Defendant Apple, Inc. ("Apple") removed this action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 USC § 1332(d).
Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to remand this action to state court. See Dkt. #17.
Apple has filed a statement of non-opposition, informing the Court that it does not oppose remand. See Dkt. #26. Pursuant to the Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court deems this matter appropriate for 22 resolution without oral argument and vacates the July 21, 2011 hearing. For the reasons explained 23 below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' unopposed motion and REMANDS this action to Santa Clara County Superior Court.
On March 15, 2011, Plaintiffs Christina Jenkins and Jessica Veffer
filed a putative class
action Complaint for equitable relief in the Superior Court of
Santa Clara County against Apple, 28 alleging claims under
California's Unfair Competition Law, Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et
seq.("Section 17200"), and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"),
Civil Code § 1750 et 2 seq. Plaintiffs allege unfair business
practices in connection with the sale of software applications
¶¶ 1-4. Plaintiffs each downloaded the same app, a game called Angry
Birds, from the Apple App 5
Store with the expectation that the app would not "unnecessarily
access or transmit data from 6 their iPhone[s]." Id. at ¶¶ 26-28.
Plaintiffs later learned that the app transmitted various 7
individualized data from their iPhones to third parties without their
informed consent. Id. at ¶ 29. 8
("apps") for Apple's iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad devices through the
Apple App Store. Compl.
Plaintiffs allege that Apple's practices constitute "fraudulent practices and are likely to deceive the 9 consumer." Id. at ¶ 41. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, and only injunctive relief, requiring Apple 10 to either cease offering apps which unnecessarily access and transmit user data, or to conspicuously inform consumers about the transmissions if an app does transmit such data. Id. at ¶¶ 44-45, 51-52.
Every federal court has an independent obligation to examine its own jurisdiction.
Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000). In the case of a removed action, if it 16 appears at any time before final judgment that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court 17 must remand the action to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). "The removal statute is strictly 18 construed, and any doubt about the right of removal requires resolution in favor of remand." See 19
Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Gaus v. Miles, 20 Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). Because of the "strong presumption" against removal 21 jurisdiction, the defendant bears the burden of establishing the facts to support jurisdiction. See 22 Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566-67. and an Article III federal court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the suit." Cetacean Cmty. v. Bush, 386 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2004). In order to have standing under Article III, "a 27 plaintiff must show that he is under threat of ...