Josue Alfaro v. NPL Construction Co. et al

Filing 18

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 3/14/2017; reply by 3/21/2017. (vdr)

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

ED CV 17-0294 FMO (KKx)

Title

Josue Alfaro v. NPL Construction Co.

Present: The Honorable

Date

March 7, 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: Remand

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, Notice of Removal (“NOR”) at ¶ 2). “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, et al. 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.”). The
NOR also appears to suffer from a procedural defect in that it appears that the removal was
untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. No later than March 14, 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 plaintiffs. Failure to show cause 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 Response no later than March 21, 2017.
3. If plaintiff wishes to file a motion for remand, he must do so no later than March 20,
2017. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

vdr
Page 1 of 1