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.

Title: Meryl Overton v. Cvs Caremark Corporation

April 24, 2012

TITLE: MERYL OVERTON
v.
CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION, ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable David O. Carter, Judge

CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL

O

JS-6

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE

Julie Barrera N/A Courtroom Clerk Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

None Present None Present

PROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS): SUA SPONTE REMAND

The Court sua sponte REMANDS this case to the Superior Court of Orange County, California.

I.Background

Plaintiff Meryl Overton ("Plaintiff"), on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated (collectively "Plaintiffs"), alleges that she bought a bottle of CVS Gold Emblem Pure & Natural Honey ("CVS Honey") at one of CVS Caremark Corporation's ("CVS Caremark") stores in Fountain Valley, California. Compl. ¶ 7. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of California citizens who purchased the same product from any of the Defendant's stores located in the State of California, at any time from January 1, 2010, through the present ("Class Period"). Id. at ¶ 2.

On December 01, 2011, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant CVS Caremark ("Defendant") in Orange County Superior Court, alleging exclusively state law claims:

(1) violations of the California Consumers Remedies Act for injunctive relief; (2) violations of California Unfair Competition Law; (3) violations of California False Advertising Law; (4) breach of implied contract; and (5) violation of the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Id. at ¶ 9-14. On January 26, 2012, Defendant removed the action to this Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). (Dkt. 1). Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Remand on February 24, 2012, arguing that Defendant has not proven that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 as required by CAFA. Motion to Remand 1-2.

Defendant argues that the actual damages, attorney's fees, punitive damages and injunctive relief prayed for in Plaintiff's Complaint total an amount of controversy over $5,000,000, thereby satisfying CAFA's amount in controversy requirement. Opp'n 1-2. Defendant estimates that the actual damages, attorney's fees, and punitive damages equal a total $1,145,239. Opp'n 9. Defendant argues that the gap between CAFA's amount in controversy requirement and the total damages requested by Plaintiff is bridged by the compliance costs Defendant will incur when ...


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.