United States District Court, E.D. California
SANDY BELL and MARTIN GAMA, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and as aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (
GARIAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge.
On November 5, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand this putative class action to the Superior Court of the State of California from which it was removed. The motion was granted, but the Ninth Circuit vacated the remand order stating in pertinent part:
Following the issuance of the Remand Order... this [the Ninth Circuit] decided Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC , 728 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2013).... As explained in Rodriguez, "[a] defendant seeking removal of a putative class action must demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, that the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum, " irrespective of the damages alleged in the complaint. Id . at 981.
Because the "legal certainty" standard no longer applies, we vacate the district court's April 26, 2013 [order] and remand this appeal to the district court for consideration of federal jurisdiction in light of Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC .
(U.S.Ct. Appeals Order 2, ECF No. 31.)
Since federal jurisdiction should be considered in light of Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC ., Plaintiffs' pending remand motion, which is premised on an inapplicable standard, is denied. Further, Plaintiff shall file a brief no later than March 13, 2014 concerning the jurisdictional issue in light of Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC . The hearing on the matter shall be noticed in accordance with the court's regularly scheduled law and motion matters.
Further, the status conference currently scheduled for April 28, 2014, is rescheduled to June 23, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. A joint status report shall be filed ...