United States District Court, C.D. California
Present: The Honorable PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
IN CHAMBERS -ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Court has reviewed the response (Docket No. 14) filed by
defendants Caliber Holdings Corporation, Caliber Collision
Transport Services LLC, and Caliber Bodyworks, Inc.
(collectively “Defendants”) to the Court's
May 3, 2018, Order to Show Cause. In removing this putative
class action filed against them by plaintiff Luis Uribe
(“Plaintiff”), Defendants alleged that this Court
has jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship pursuant
to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”).
(Docket No. 1); see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). The
Court ordered Defendants to show cause why this action should
not be remanded for lack of jurisdiction under either
exception in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4), and why the Court
should not exercise its discretion to decline to exercise
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(3). (Docket
No. 11.) Defendants' response consents to remand of this
action to state court.
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject
matter jurisdiction over only those matters authorized by the
Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct.
1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). A suit filed in state court may
be removed to federal court if the federal court would have
had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. §
1441(a). A removed action must be remanded to state court if
the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 28
U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The burden of establishing
federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, and the
removal statute is strictly construed against removal
jurisdiction.” Prize Frize, Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.)
Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 1999).
“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any
doubt as to the right of removal in the first
instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564,
566 (9th Cir. 1992).
invoke diversity jurisdiction pursuant to CAFA, Defendants
must demonstrate, at a minimum, that at least one plaintiff
and one defendant are citizens of different states and that
the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5, 000, 000.00,
exclusive of interests and costs. 28 U.S.C. §
1332(d)(2). However, there are exceptions to CAFA
jurisdiction for local controversies, two of which require
that the Court decline to exercise jurisdiction. See 28
U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A), (B).
the terms of CAFA, “[a] district court shall decline to
exercise jurisdiction under [28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) if]
two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff
classes in the aggregate, and the primary defendants, are
citizens of the State in which the action was originally
filed.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B).
district court is also required to decline CAFA jurisdiction
where (a) “greater than two-thirds of the members of
all proposed plaintiff classes are citizens of the State in
which the action was originally filed”; (b) at least
one defendant is a defendant “from whom significant
relief is sought by members of the plaintiff class”;
“whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for
the claims” of the class; and “who is a citizen
of the State in which the action was originally filed”;
and (c) “principal injuries resulting from the alleged
conduct or any related conduct of each defendant were
incurred in the State in which the action was originally
filed.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A)(i). This
exception applies only if “during the 3-year period
preceding the filing of that class action, no other class
action has been filed asserting the same or similar factual
allegations against any of the defendants on behalf of the
same or other persons.” 28 U.S.C. §
Complaint alleges that defendant Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. is a
California corporation, and that “Defendants operate
over one hundred (100) repair centers in the State of
California . . . .” (Compl. p.1; id. at ¶
10.) Furthermore, Plaintiff seeks to certify multiple
classes, each of which “consists of all of
Defendants' current and former non-exempt employees in
California who worked as Bodymen . . . .” (Id.
at ¶ 16.) Thus, the Complaint alleges that one defendant
is a citizen of California; all putative class members are or
were, by definition, “in California”; and each of
Plaintiff's claims involve violations that occurred in
the state of California. When given the opportunity to
explain why the local controversy exceptions to CAFA
jurisdiction found in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A) &
(B) do not apply, Defendants filed a response
“consenting to the remand of this action to state
court.” (Docket No. 14.) Thus, the Court finds that
Defendants have not established that this Court has CAFA
jurisdiction over this action.
foregoing reasons, Defendants have failed to satisfy their
burden of showing that this Court has jurisdiction over this
action. Accordingly, this action is remanded to Los Angeles
County Superior Court, No. BC 695726, ...