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)

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