Stephanie Escobar v Just Born, Inc. et al

Filing 10

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell. The Court therefore ORDERS Defendant to show cause as to why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, specifically in regard to the amount in controversy. Defendant mustrespond by April 4, 2017 by 4:00 p.m. A satisfactory response to this Order will include reasons for the assumptions underlying Defendants calculation that each putative class member purchased two of the subject products, per year, for five years. IT IS SO ORDERED. (rfi)

Download PDF
LINK: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. CV 17-01826 BRO (PJWx) Title STEPHANIE ESCOBAR V. JUST BORN, INC. ET AL. Date March 29, 2017   Present: The Honorable BEVERLY REID O’CONNELL, United States District Judge Renee Fisher Not Present N/A CourtroomDeputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No. Attorneys Present for Defendants: Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Not Present Proceedings: Not Present (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION A federal court must determine that subject matter jurisdiction exists even where the parties do not raise the issue. Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996). Because federal courts are of limited jurisdiction, they possess original jurisdiction only as authorized by the Constitution and federal statutes. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The Court’s “original jurisdiction” may be established pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) if: (1) the “number of members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate” exceeds 100, (2) the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, and (3) any class member is a citizen of a state different from any defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Just Born, Inc. (“Defendant”) argues in its Removal: “Plaintiff [Stephanie Escobar] does not plead a specific amount of damages, the aggregate amount-in-controversy here easily exceeds $5,000,000.” (Dkt. No. 1 (“Removal”) at 5, ¶ 18.) And Defendant explains that: (1) “Plaintiff allegedly paid approximately $4.00 for Just Born’s product,” (Removal ¶ 18 (citing Compl. ¶ 21)); (2) “the putative class here includes ‘hundreds of thousands’ of members,” (id. (citing Compl. ¶ 73)); and, (3) “a conservative estimation would place the amount in controversy at $8 million (i.e., $4 * 200,000 members * 10 purchases (two for each of the five years)),” (id. (citing Compl. ¶ 8)). CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL   Page 1 of 2 LINK: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. CV 17-01826 BRO (PJWx) Title STEPHANIE ESCOBAR V. JUST BORN, INC. ET AL. Date March 29, 2017 The Court is unable to determine, based on Defendant’s Removal, whether the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. The Court therefore ORDERS Defendant to show cause as to why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, specifically in regard to the amount in controversy. Defendant must respond by April 4, 2017 by 4:00 p.m. A satisfactory response to this Order will include reasons for the assumptions underlying Defendant’s calculation that each putative class member purchased two of the subject products, per year, for five years. : IT IS SO ORDERED. Initials of Preparer CV-90 (06/04)   CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL rf   Page 2 of 2

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?