Eugene Fridman et al v. Bally Total Fitness Holding Corporation et al
Filing
38
ORDER DISMISSING CASE: Upon sua sponte review of Plaintiffs Complaint, the Court finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and must dismiss the case without prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall close this case by Judge Otis D Wright, II. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (lc). Modified on 9/25/2012 (lc).
O
JS-6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
12
EUGENE FRIDMAN, EDWARD
RAECEK, BRIAN M. DROMGOOLE,
RONNIE KEHATI, and JOSEPH V.
ESPOSITO, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated,
15
16
17
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
Plaintiffs,
13
14
Case No. 2:12-cv-707-ODW(MRWx)
v.
BALLY TOTAL FITNESS HOLDING
CORP. and L.A. FITNESS
INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
Defendants.
18
19
20
Upon sua sponte review of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, the Court finds that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction and must dismiss the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
21
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject-matter
22
jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g.,
23
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Subject-matter
24
jurisdiction exists in civil cases involving a federal question or diversity of citizenship.
25
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. In this case, Plaintiffs solely allege diversity jurisdiction
26
and brings no federal causes of action.
27
Diversity jurisdiction exists for all suits, including class-action suits, where “the
28
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and
1
costs,” and is between parties with diverse citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). But
2
multiple plaintiffs may not aggregate their claims against defendants—to reach the
3
$75,000 threshold—unless they have a single title or right in a common and undivided
4
interest. Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 943–44 (9th Cir. 2001).
5
Alternatively, plaintiffs may establish diversity jurisdiction under the Class
6
Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). Under CAFA, diversity jurisdiction exists in “mass
7
action” suits so long as the following requirements are met: (1) 100 or more plaintiffs;
8
(2) common questions of law or fact between plaintiffs’ claims; (3) minimal diversity,
9
where at least one plaintiff is diverse from one defendant; (4) aggregated claims in
10
excess of $5 million; and (5) at least one plaintiff’s claim exceeding $75,000. 28
11
U.S.C. § 1332(d); Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 689 (9th Cir. 2006).
12
In this class action, Plaintiffs properly allege complete diversity under
13
§ 1332(a), but fail to allege that the amount in controversy (per Plaintiff) exceeds
14
$75,000.1
15
million.” (Compl. ¶ 1.) But this does not suffice—individual Plaintiffs still must
16
show that their claims exceed $75,000. Gibson, 261 F.3d at 943–44. In situations like
17
this where plaintiffs do not state specific, individual amounts in damages, the Court
18
determines under the preponderance-of-evidence standard whether the jurisdictional
19
amount is satisfied. Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc., 479 F.3d 994, 998 (9th
20
Cir. 2007).
Plaintiffs state that the aggregate amount in controversy “exceeds $5
21
Examining the Complaint, the Court finds no evidence suggesting that any class
22
member would be entitled to more than $75,000 in damages. Plaintiffs bring this
23
class-action suit for breach of contract and consumer fraud because Defendants no
24
longer honor their “lifetime” and long-term gym memberships. (Compl. ¶¶ 97, 109.)
25
Plaintiffs mention the costs they paid to acquire these memberships.2 But none of
26
1
27
28
Plaintiffs are citizens of Arizona, Florida, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. Defendants
are citizens of California and Illinois. (Compl. ¶¶ 10–16.)
2
Fridman acquired his lifetime membership as a gift, and is required to pay a $17.32 monthly
maintenance fee for the membership; Raecek’s lifetime membership cost “approximately $1,000,”
2
1
these costs come close to $75,000. Further, the Complaint fails to state—and rightly
2
so—that Plaintiffs have individually suffered damages in excess of $75,000; the Court
3
sees no reason how they could. Based on Plaintiffs’ allegations, the Court finds that
4
no class member’s claim—not just under a preponderance, but with legal certainty—
5
could possibly exceed $75,000. Accordingly, as a regular class-action suit, there is no
6
diversity jurisdiction here under § 1332(a).
7
But Plaintiffs also allege that this is a CAFA mass action under § 1332(d),
8
because it involves more than 100 plaintiffs and over $5 million in aggregated
9
damages. (Compl. ¶ 1.) Plaintiffs also satisfy the minimal-diversity requirement.
10
(Compl. ¶¶ 10–16.)
11
Yet, under Ninth Circuit law, individual plaintiffs must still meet the $75,000
12
amount-in-controversy requirement in a CAFA mass action: “‘jurisdiction shall exist
13
only over those plaintiffs whose claims in a mass action satisfy the [in excess of
14
$75,000] jurisdictional amount.’” Abrego, 443 F.3d at 687 (alteration in original)
15
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(i)). While it is unclear whether each individual
16
plaintiff in a mass action has to meet the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement,
17
it is clear that at least one plaintiff must meet that requirement. Id. at 689 (“We do
18
conclude . . . that the case cannot go forward unless there is at least one plaintiff
19
whose claims can remain in federal court.”).
20
To be clear, the Court is unaware of any binding authority that applies the
21
$75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement to plaintiffs in a mass action originating
22
in federal court, as opposed to on removal. Abrego and its progeny deal only with
23
cases removed from state court—it may be argued that the curious CAFA statute
24
should be construed to mean that the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement
25
26
27
28
and he must pay an annual maintenance fee of $25.51; Dromgoole paid “approximately $1,300” for
his lifetime membership, and paid a $100 fee to transfer his “home club”; Kehati’s lifetime
membership cost “approximately $2,500,” and he must pay $30 per year in maintenance fees;
Esposito paid “approximately $559” for his lifetime membership, and must pay a $60 annual
maintenance fee. (Compl. ¶¶ 42–43, 52–53, 59–62, 68–69, 76–77.)
3
1
applies only to cases removed from state court, and not to cases originally filed in
2
federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(A) (“For purposes of this subsection . . . a
3
mass action shall be deemed to be a class action removable under paragraphs (2)
4
through (10) if it otherwise meets the provisions of those paragraphs.”).
5
But this Court finds it illogical that the amount-in-controversy requirement for
6
removal would be different (and more strict) than for a case originating in federal
7
court.
8
conclusion, holding that the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement equally
9
applies to actions removed from state court and actions originally filed in federal
10
court. Cappuccitti v. DirecTV, Inc., 611 F.3d 1252, 1256–57 (11th Cir. 2010.) But
11
the Eleventh Circuit later vacated this opinion and held that there is no $75,000
12
requirement for CAFA diversity jurisdiction—for cases removed from state court and
13
cases originating in federal court. Cappuccitti v. DirecTV, Inc., 623 F.3d 1118, 1122
14
(11th Cir. 2010).
The Court is aware of one Court of Appeals case that makes the same
15
The Ninth Circuit, however, has maintained its $75,000 amount-in-controversy
16
requirement in Abrego, but has not explicitly held that this requirement also applies to
17
actions originating in federal court. Nevertheless, it is this Court’s position that so
18
long as the Ninth Circuit’s Abrego opinion stands, it is bound to follow the $75,000
19
amount-in-controversy requirement, both for cases removed from state court and cases
20
originating in federal court.
21
22
23
Therefore, this case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
26
27
September 25, 2012
____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?