Angela Birdsell v. The GEO Group Inc et al

Filing 10

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell. Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant shall file its response to this Order no later than Thursday, October 13, 2016, at 4:00 p.m. (rfi)

LINK:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-02054 BRO (FFMx)

Title

ANGELA BIRDSELL V. THE GEO GROUP INC ET AL.

Date

October 7, 2016

Present: The Honorable

BEVERLY REID O’CONNELL, United States District Judge

Renee A. Fisher

Not Present

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION
Plaintiff Angela Birdsell (“Plaintiff”) brought this action in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Bernardino, on August 9, 2016. (See Dkt. No. 1-3.) On
August 22, 2016, she filed a First Amended Complaint in Superior Court. (Dkt. No. 1-4
(hereinafter, “FAC”).) Defendant The GEO Group, Inc. (“Defendant”) removed the
action to this Court on September 28, 2016. (See Dkt. No. 1 (hereinafter, “Removal”).)
Plaintiff’s Complaint indicates that seeks to represent “herself and a national class” to
recover from Defendant for its alleged misappropriation or misuse of sensitive medical
information. (See Removal ¶ 2; FAC.)
A federal court must determine its own jurisdiction, even where there is no
objection to it. 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 statute. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.
Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Defendant removed Plaintiff’s Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), which allows for federal subject matter jurisdiction so
long as all plaintiffs are diverse from all defendants and the amount in controversy is, at
minimum, $75,000. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1332(a). Defendant’s removal alleges that
Plaintiff is a California resident and Defendant is a Florida corporation with its principal
place of business also in Florida. (Removal ¶¶ 8–10.) To meet the amount in
controversy requirement, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s causes of action allow for
statutory damages of $1,000 per class member, meaning at least $400,000 in damages
may be at issue in this case. (Removal ¶ 12.)
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 16-02054 BRO (FFMx)

Title

ANGELA BIRDSELL V. THE GEO GROUP INC ET AL.

Date

October 7, 2016

But in its Removal, Defendant does not establish that all members of the “national
class” (i.e., the plaintiffs) that Plaintiff seeks to represent are diverse from Defendant.
Thus, it is not clear that removal is proper under § 1332(a). Moreover, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(d) specifically authorizes the removal of class actions, so long as “any member of
a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant,” and “the matter
in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).
Therefore, while Defendant’s failure to establish that all class members are diverse from
Defendant is not fatal under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), Defendant has failed to establish that
damages are likely to exceed $5,000,000. Therefore, it is also not clear that Defendant’s
removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).
Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED to show cause as to why this case should
not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant shall file its response
to this Order no later than Thursday, October 13, 2016, at 4:00 p.m.

:

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Preparer

rf

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 2 of 2