Roy H. Smithson v. Jackson National Life Insurance Company

Filing 22

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 11/6/2017. (vdr)

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

CV 17-7485 FMO (RAOx)

Title

Roy H. Smithson v. Jackson National Life Insurance Company

Present: The Honorable

Date

October 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: 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 Class Action (“Complaint”) at ¶ 9). “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 Complaint, 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 court questions, the . . . allegation.”). Plaintiff makes a
conclusory allegation that the class action’s amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, (see Dkt.
1, Complaint at ¶ 9), despite pleading that class members’ claims are of a “relatively small size[.]”
(See Dkt. 1, Complaint at ¶ 50).
Further, “[a] district court . . . may dispose of an action by a forum non conveniens
dismissal, bypassing questions of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, when considerations
of convenience, fairness, and judicial economy so warrant.” Sinochem Int’l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia
Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 432, 127 S. Ct. 1184, 1192 (2007); see Provincial Gov’t of
Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 827
(2010) (same).

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

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

CV 17-7485 FMO (RAOx)

Date

Title

Roy H. Smithson v. Jackson National Life Insurance Company

October 26, 2017

In addition, a district court “may transfer any civil action to any other district or division
where it might have been brought” for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest
of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The purpose of § 1404(a) is to “prevent waste of time, energy,
and money and to protect litigants, witnesses, and the public against unnecessary inconvenience
and expense.” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616, 84 S.Ct. 805, 809 (1964) (internal
quotation marks omitted), superseded by statute on other grounds; see also Injen Tech. Co. v.
Advanced Engine Mgmt., 270 F.Supp.2d 1189, 1193 (S.D. Cal. 2013) (“[A] motion to transfer
venue . . . relates solely to the question where, among two or more proper forums, the matter
should be litigated to best serve the interests of judicial economy and convenience to the parties”)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Under § 1404(a), the court may transfer an action to “any other district or division where
it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” Atl.
Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Texas, 134 S.Ct. 568, 579 (2013). An action
“might have been brought” in a transferee court where “the transferee court would have had
subject matter jurisdiction at the time the action was filed; defendants would have been subject
to personal jurisdiction; and venue would have been proper.” E. & J. Gallo Winery v. F. & P.
S.p.A., 899 F.Supp. 465, 466 (E.D. Cal. 1994); see also Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, Cal.
Prac. Guide: Fed. Civ. Pro. Before Trial, 4:714 (The Rutter Group 2016) (citing Hoffman v. Blaski,
363 U.S. 335, 343-44, 80 S.Ct. 1084, 1089-90 (1960)) (same); Atl. Marine Constr. Co., 134 S.Ct.
at 578 (“[W]e construe[] the phrase ‘where it might have been brought’ to refer to the federal laws
delimiting the districts in which such an action may be brought[.]”) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Though plaintiff alleges that his claims are meaningfully connected to California, and that
defendant has purposefully directed its activities toward California and availed itself of the
privileges of conducting business in California, (see Dkt. 1, Complaint at ¶ 9) (alleging defendant
registered with the California Department of Insurance in 1969 and maintains to present the state’s
authorization to transact insurance business, provides an agent for service of process in Los
Angeles, California, solicits California residents to purchase insurance policies, including through
an office in El Segundo, California, and, based on its regulatory filings, does more business in
California than in any other state), plaintiff also alleges that he is a citizen of the state of Indiana,
and defendant is incorporated in and has its principal place of business in the state of Michigan.
(See Dkt. 1, Complaint at ¶¶ 7-8).
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that no later than November 6, 2017, plaintiff
shall show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or
transferred to another venue for the reasons noted above. Should the court transfer the action,

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

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

CV 17-7485 FMO (RAOx)

Date

Title

Roy H. Smithson v. Jackson National Life Insurance Company

October 26, 2017

plaintiff must specify in its response the venue(s) where the action should be transferred. 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 jurisdiction and/or
failure to comply with a court order.

00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

vdr

Page 3 of 3