The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable David O. Carter, Judge
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
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED
On February 27, 2013, Plaintiffs' counsel filed a Notice of Related Case in Chris Johnson v. Nutrapure, Inc., ED CV 13-0300-DSF-SP (Dkt. 8), another action in which Plaintiffs' counsel is representing a putative class in a false advertising/mislabeling claim. The notice stated that similar questions of law and fact were presented that case and the one before this Court.
On March 5, 2013, Chris Johnson v. Nutrapure was remanded to state court because the "notice of removal does not establish that the named plaintiff -- or any other single class member -- individually has a claim that exceeds $75,000." ED CV 13-0300-DSF-SP (Dkt. 10) (citing Eagle v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 769 F.2d 541, 545 (9th Cir. 1985)). Rather, the notice of removal in that case attempted, improperly, to aggregate the damages of all putative class members to reach the statutory minimum amount in controversy in order to establish diversity jurisdiction, and the notice failed to allege the aggregate amount in controversy reached the $5,000,000 class action minimum required by 28 U.S.C. 1332(d). See Notice of Removal, ED CV 13-0300-DSF-SP (Dkt. 1).
Defendants' Notice of Removal (Dkt. 1) in this case appears to suffer from the same defect, and uses the same language as the notice of removal that was found deficient in Nutrapure. See Not. of Removal at 4 (stating that, because the original complaint alleges that "Defendant has wrongfully taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from California consumers," Plaintiff "herself establishes that the amount in controversy in her case exceeds $75,000" and "[t]hat is sufficient for removal"). Accordingly, the Court is inclined to remand this case to state court.
The parties are ORDERED to submit briefing on the issues of subject matter jurisdiction, whether or not this action was improperly removed to federal court, and whether or not remand to state court is appropriate. Parties are to submit briefs of no more than ten pages on or before March 18, 2013, at which point the Court will take the matter under submission and request additional briefing if necessary.
The Clerk shall serve a copy of this minute order on counsel for all parties in this action.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw ...