Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Helena Nunez v. Nra Group
December 19, 2011
NRA GROUP, LLC
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable George H. King, U.S. District Judge
Presiding: The Honorable GEORGE H. KING, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order Remanding Case
On July 14, 2011, Plaintiff Helena Nunez ("Plaintiff") filed a lawsuit against Defendant NRA Group, LLC ("Defendant") in California state court. Plaintiff seeks to represent a proposed class of individuals who answered telephone calls from Defendant while located in California, and alleges that Defendant had a policy and practice of secretly recording telephone calls with persons located in California without their consent in violation of state law. Plaintiff alleges that she received only "approximately four (4) to eight (8) telephone calls" from Defendant, and in her prayer for relief, Plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages in the sum of $5,000 for "each incident in which a telephone conversation of Plaintiff . . . was eavesdropped, recorded, or published." On August 25, 2011, Defendant removed the matter to this Court based solely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Defendant alleged in the Notice of Removal ("NOR") that there is complete diversity of citizenship between it and Plaintiff because Defendant is incorporated in Pennsylvania and has its principal place of business in Pennsylvania, and Plaintiff is a citizen of California. Defendant alleged that the amount in controversy requirement has been satisfied because Plaintiff effectively alleges statutory damages of approximately $80,000. Defendant made no allegation that this action was purportedly removable under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").
On November 22, 2011, we issued an Order to Show Cause ("OSC"), stating that Defendant had not met its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold. We noted that Defendant's $80,000 estimation appeared to be based on an assumption that Plaintiff received eight telephone calls from Defendant that were recorded and that Plaintiff would be entitled to double recovery for each of those eight telephone calls because Plaintiff asserts two causes of action. We further stated that if this theory was the basis of Defendant's calculation, Defendant had provided no authority nor explanation as to why Plaintiff would be entitled to recovery under both causes of action for each alleged incident in which a telephone conversation was recorded. Accordingly, we ordered Defendant to show cause why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. CV 11-7045-GHK (FMOx)
Buy This Entire Record For