Dardarian v. Restoration Hardware, Inc.

Filing 25

ORDER REQUESTING BRIEFING REGARDING SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION. Signed by Judge Alsup on June 6, 2011. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

NANCY DARDARIAN, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

No. C 11-00946 WHA

ORDER REQUESTING BRIEFING
REGARDING SUBJECT-MATTER
JURISDICTION

v.
RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC.,
Defendant.
/

16
17

Plaintiff herein brings a proposed class action asserting one claim of violation of

18

California Civil Code Section 1747.08, the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act. Subject matter

19

jurisdiction is solely asserted based on the Class Action Fairness Act (Compl. ¶ 5). Defendant

20

answered the complaint and “admit[ted] that this Court has jurisdiction over this action.”

21

Immediately after filing its answer, defendant filed a motion to dismiss or stay because of a

22

pending state-court action that concerns the same claim as to the same defendant on behalf of

23

a similar class. Defendant’s opening brief did not contest subject-matter jurisdiction based on

24

CAFA. In a footnote in its reply in support of its motion, however, defendant states: “It has []

25

come to [defendant]’s attention that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action

26

under the Class Action Fairness Act” (Reply 1 n.1). No more is said on the matter.

27

“Nothing is to be more jealously guarded by a court than its jurisdiction.” In re

28

Disciplinary Action Against Mooney, 841 F.2d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1988) (overruled on other
grounds). If the parties fail to raise the issue, the absence of subject-matter jurisdiction must

1

be raised by the district court sua sponte. The parties’ concessions that jurisdiction exists is

2

not a bar to this inquiry: “A party cannot estop itself into jurisdiction where none exists.”

3

Hajek v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 186 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir. 1999). Federal courts must

4

normally determine jurisdictional issues before considering the merits of a case. See Steel Co.

5

v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94–101 (1998).

6

Accordingly, this order finds that it is necessary to determine whether CAFA

stay the action because of a substantially similar pending state-court action. The motion

9

hearing and case management conference on June 16 are accordingly VACATED; they will be

10

re-set by the Court if and when necessary. Both sides shall please file submissions concerning

11
For the Northern District of California

jurisdiction is properly invoked by plaintiff before proceeding to decide whether to dismiss or

8

United States District Court

7

whether subject-matter jurisdiction over this action exists, of no more than 15 pages in length,

12

by JUNE 20, 2011. The parties may then reply to the other side’s submission, in no more than

13

10 pages, by JUNE 27, 2011.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: June 6, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2