Summer Sandoval v. YummyEarth Inc. et al

Filing 23

ORDER by Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr remanding case to San Bernardino County Superior Court, Case number CIVDS 1709943 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (shb)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California
Western Division

8
9
10
11
12

SUMMER SANDOVAL,

13
14
15

CV 17-01832 TJH (KKx)

Plaintiff,
v.
YUMMYEARTH INC.,

16

Defendant.

Order

JS-6

17
18
19

The Court has reviewed Defendant YummyEarth Inc.’s [“YummyEarth”] notice
of removal.

20

YummyEarth is a New Jersey corporation that sells food products, including bags

21

of lollipops. Sandoval, a California citizen, alleged that she bought YummyEarth’s

22

lollipops, thinking that the lollipops were healthy because the ingredient list listed

23

“evaporated cane juice” rather than “sugar.” In 2017, Sandoval filed this putative class

24

action, in California Superior Court, on behalf of herself and all unnamed individuals

25

who purchased YummyEarth’s lollipops with the “evaporated cane juice” labeling.

26

Sandoval’s First Amended Complaint [“FAC”] alleged that YummyEarth’s labeling

27

was a: (1) Negligent misrepresentation; (2) Violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies

28

Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq.; (3) Violation of California’s False Advertising
Order – Page 1 of 3

1

law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq.; and (4) Violation of California’s

2

Unlawful Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. Sandoval sought

3

damages, restitution, and injunctive relief, but did not specify any amounts.

4

YummyEarth removed this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, based on

5

diversity jurisdiction. See Serrano v. 180 Connect, Inc., 478 F.3d 1018, 1021 n. 4 (9th

6

Cir. 2007). The Court has subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of diversity when the

7

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 and the parties are citizens of different

8

states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The issue, here, is whether the amount in controversy

9

threshold has been met. Because it is not facially evident from the FAC that the

10

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, YummyEarth must allege facts in the

11

notice of removal to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in

12

controversy exceeds $75,000.00. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117

13

(9th Cir. 2004).

14

Sandoval alleged the lollipops cost $8.99 per bag.

YummyEarth has not

15

substantiated that Sandoval, or any other individual putative class members, purchased

16

over 8,000 bags of lollipops.

17

monetary relief claims to meet the threshold because it did not remove this action

18

pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(D)(2), and none of the

19

exceptions to aggregating putative class claims are applicable, here. See Gibson v.

20

Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 943-944 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, YummyEarth

21

has not shown that Sandoval, or any putative class member, can meet the minimum

22

amount in controversy with regard to their monetary relief claims. See Exxon Mobil

23

Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 555 (2005).

YummyEarth cannot aggregate the putative class

24

Where plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, as Sandoval does here, the amount in

25

controversy threshold may, also, be met by measuring the value of the injunctive relief.

26

See Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2002). YummyEarth

27

submitted a declaration from its Chief Executive Officer, who declared that complying

28

with an injunction would cost over $75,000.00 without providing any factual basis for
Order – Page 2 of 3

1

such conclusion. However, “a defendant seeking to remove an action may not offer

2

mere legal conclusions; it must allege the underlying facts supporting each of the

3

requirements for removal.” Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2014).

4

Accordingly, YummyEarth failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that

5

this Court has diversity jurisdiction.

6
7

Accordingly,

8
9

It is Ordered, sua sponte, that the action be, and hereby is, Remanded.

10
11

Date: April 9, 2018

12

__________________________________

13

Terry J. Hatter, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Order – Page 3 of 3