Omar Morgades v. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc.

Filing 9

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 5/2/2017. (vdr)

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

CV 17-2605 FMO (FFMx)

Title

Omar Morgades v. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc.

Present: The Honorable

Date

April 25, 2017

Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge

Vanessa Figueroa

None

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: Dismissal for Lack of
Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction in this case is asserted on the basis of the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”),
28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). (See Dkt. 1, Complaint at ¶ 6). “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).
Notwithstanding the Complaint’s assertion that damages “exceeds the $5,000,000.00
threshold for federal court jurisdiction,” (Dkt. 1, Complaint at ¶ 6), the court has concerns regarding
the amount in controversy requirement in this case, particularly since the Complaint alleges that
the proposed class “number in the hundreds, if not more,” (id. at ¶ 30), and putative class
representative contends that he was defrauded by paying $20.00 per month since approximately
October 2014. (See id. at ¶ 11-14).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that no later than May 2, 2017, plaintiff shall file a response,
not to exceed five (5) pages, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Failure to respond to this order to show cause by the deadline set forth above
shall be deemed as consent to the dismissal of the action without prejudice for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and/or failure to comply with a court order, see Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b); Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388 (1962).
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

vdr

Page 1 of 1