Aviva Copaken v. Shake Shack Inc.

Filing 11

MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause This Case Should Not Be Remanded to State Court by Judge Josephine L. Staton: Defendant is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, no later than five (5) days from the date of this Order, why CAFA's amount-in- controversy requirement is met. Plaintiff has five (5) days thereafter to submit any response. No further briefing is permitted. The parties' briefing shall not exceed five (5) pages, not including any declaration(s). Alternatively, a stipulation to remand will be an acceptable response. (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 2:25-cv-01734-JLS-MAR
Title: Aviva Copaken v. Shake Shack Inc.

Date: March 07, 2025

Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Kelly Davis
Deputy Clerk
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Not Present

N/A
Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Defendant:
Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO STATE COURT
Plaintiff Aviva Copaken filed this putative class action in Los Angeles Superior
Court, asserting claims for (1) unjust enrichment; (2) violations of California’s Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.; (3) violations of California’s
False and Misleading Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq.; and (4)
violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code §§
1750, et seq. (Ex. 1 to Notice of Removal (“NOR”), Compl. ¶¶ 57–94, Doc. 1-1.)
Defendant Shake Shack Inc. removed, citing this Court’s jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). (NOR ¶ 9, Doc. 1.)
CAFA requires, among other things, that the amount in controversy “exceed[ ] the
sum or value of $5,000,000.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). “A defendant’s notice of removal
to federal court must ‘contain[ ] a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal,”
including the amount in controversy. Moe v. GEICO Indem. Co., 73 F.4th 757, 761 (9th
Cir. 2023) (quoting Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 87,
(2014)). Where the plaintiff’s state-court complaint includes a damages demand, that
amount, if made in good faith, “shall be deemed to be the amount in controversy.” Id. §
1446(c)(2). Where the plaintiff’s complaint “does not specify the damages sought, the
defendant ordinarily may satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement by making a
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 2:25-cv-01734-JLS-MAR
Date: March 07, 2025
Title: Aviva Copaken v. Shake Shack Inc.
plausible assertion of the amount at issue in its notice of removal.” Moe, 73 F.4th at 761.
Defendant bears “the burden to show that the amount-in-controversy requirement is met
by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at 762. “[T]he defendant’s amount-incontroversy allegation should be accepted when not contested by the plaintiff or
questioned by the court.” Id. at 761 (quoting Dart, 574 U.S. at 87). Here, the plain
allegations of the Complaint cause the Court to question the Defendant’s claimed amount
in controversy.
Plaintiff’s Complaint does not specify the damages sought, so Defendant was
obligated to plausibly allege the amount in controversy. (See Compl.) Defendant asserts
in its Notice of Removal that the amount-in-controversy exceeds $5,000,000. (NOR ¶¶
15–22.) In support, Defendant submits a declaration from its Chief Growth Officer
providing that Defendant’s “revenue derived from delivery orders” during the time period
alleged in the Complaint was “$5,931,619” for food and beverage purchases and
“$818,831” for delivery, courier, and service fees. (So Decl. ¶ 5, Doc. 1-2.) Yet
Defendant does not provide—and the Court is unaware of—any avenue through which
Plaintiff would be entitled to damages associated with Defendant’s revenue derived from
all food and beverages purchases. Rather, the crux of Plaintiff’s Complaint is that
Defendant “obscure[s] its true [delivery] fees to consumers” because it assesses a
“Service Fee” and “Courier Fee” on delivery orders placed on its app or website while
representing that “the ‘Delivery Fee’ for food delivery … is just $1.99[.]” (See Compl.
¶¶ 19–22.) These allegedly “surreptitiously added on fees” form the basis of Plaintiff’s
claims. (Id. ¶ 10.) It appears to the Court that the amount in controversy less than
$818,831 and far below CAFA’s $5 million threshold. (See So Decl. ¶ 5; see generally
Compl.)
Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, no later than five
(5) days from the date of this Order, why CAFA’s amount-in-controversy requirement is
met. Plaintiff has five (5) days thereafter to submit any response. No further briefing is

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 2:25-cv-01734-JLS-MAR
Date: March 07, 2025
Title: Aviva Copaken v. Shake Shack Inc.
permitted. The parties’ briefing shall not exceed five (5) pages, not including any
declaration(s). Alternatively, a stipulation to remand will be an acceptable response.

Initials of Deputy Clerk: kd

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
3