Polo Garcia et al v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Filing 9

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: REMAND by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Defendant is order to show cause no later than 7/31/2015, in writing, why this action should not be remanded. Failure to respond to this order by 7/31/2015 shall be deemed as consent to the remand of the action to state court. Plaintiffs shall file a reply to defendant's response to this order, no later than 8/7/2015. *See order for other deadlines.* (cw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-5337 FMO (ASx)

Title

Polo Garcia et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Present: The Honorable

Date

July 24, 2015

Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge

Cheryl Wynn

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorney Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney Present for Defendant(s):

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Remand

Jurisdiction in this case is asserted on the basis of the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”),
28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). (See Notice of Removal (“NOR”) at 2). “CAFA provides expanded original
diversity jurisdiction for class actions meeting the amount in controversy and minimal diversity and
numerosity requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).” United Steel, Paper & Forestry,
Rubber, Mfg., Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv. Workers Int’l Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. Shell Oil Co.,
602 F.3d 1087, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2010). Under that provision, “district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of any civil action in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
$5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is a class action in which . . . any member of a
class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).
Having reviewed the NOR, the court questions whether the claims of the individual class
members exceed $5,000,000 in the aggregate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2); Dart Cherokee Basin
Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S.Ct. 547, 554 (2014) (“Evidence establishing the amount is
required . . . when the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the defendant’s allegation.”).
The NOR also appears to suffer from a procedural defect in that it appears that the removal
was untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. No later than July 31, 2015, defendant shall show cause in writing why this action
should not be remanded for the reasons noted above. This deadline shall not extend the time for
responding to any motion for remand filed by plaintiffs. Failure to respond to the OSC by the
deadline set forth above shall be deemed as consent to the remand of the action to state
court.
2. Plaintiffs shall file a reply to defendant’s OSC response no later than August 7, 2015.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-5337 FMO (ASx)

Date

Title

Polo Garcia et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

July 24, 2015

3. If plaintiffs wish to file a motion for remand, they must do so no later than August 14,
2015. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
4. A copy of all papers filed with the court shall be delivered to the drop box outside
chambers at Suite 520, Spring Street Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, no later than 12:00
noon the following business day. All chambers copies shall comply fully with the document
formatting requirements of Local Rule 11-3, including the “backing” requirements of Local Rule
11-3.5. Counsel may be subject to sanctions for failure to deliver a mandatory chambers copy in
full compliance with this Order and Local Rule 11-3.

00

:

00

Initials of Preparer
cw

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2