Jose Tinoco v. Hajoca Corporation et al

Filing 14

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 10/3/2017; reply by 10/10/2017. (vdr)

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

CV 17-6187 FMO (ASx)

Title

Jose Tinoco v. Hajoca Corporation

Present: The Honorable

Date

Sept. 26, 2017

Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge

Vanessa Figueroa

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 ¶ 5). “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.”).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. No later than October 3, 2017, 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 plaintiff. 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. Plaintiff shall file a reply to defendant’s OSC response no later than October 10, 2017.
3. 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
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 17-6187 FMO (ASx)

Date

Title

Jose Tinoco v. Hajoca Corporation

Sept. 26, 2017

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
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

vdr

Page 2 of 2