Granfield v. NVIDIA Corporation

Filing 64

ORDER Dismissing Case (jwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/27/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
NO. C 11-05403 JW

Monica Granfield,

11

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK
OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Plaintiff,
v.

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
NVIDIA Corp.,
13
Defendant.
14
15

/
On July 11, 2012, the Court issued an Order Granting in part and Denying in part

16

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.1 In its July 11 Order, the Court held that Plaintiff could not

17

maintain any causes of action under the laws of any state other than Massachusetts, where Plaintiff

18

purchased her allegedly defective computer. (Id. at 5-7.) In addition, the Court found that Plaintiff

19

lacked standing to assert claims based on deficiencies in any model of computer other than the

20

model purchased by Plaintiff. (Id. at 10-11.) However, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion to

21

Dismiss as to Plaintiff’s claim under Chapter 93A of Massachusetts law, and ordered Plaintiff to

22

submit an amended complaint consistent with the terms of that Order. (Id. at 7, 11.)

23
24

On August 15, 2012, Plaintiff submitted a Statement in Response to the Court’s July 11
Order.2 In her Response, Plaintiff states that in light of the Court’s July 11 Order, she cannot

25
26
1

27
2

28

(hereafter, “July 11 Order,” Docket Item No. 60.)

(Plaintiff’s Submission in Response to Court’s July 11, 2012 Order Granting in part and
Denying in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, hereafter, “Response,” Docket Item No. 63.)

1

represent that the aggregate value of the claims of the putative class exceeds $5,000,000, as is

2

required to invoke jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). (Id. at 1.)

3

Upon review, and in light of Plaintiff’s admission that she cannot plead a good faith basis for

4

the Court’s jurisdiction, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

5

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice to Plaintiff to refile it in state

6

court if she so desires.

7
8

Judgment shall be entered as to the claims the Court dismissed with prejudice in its July 11
Order.

9
Dated: August 27, 2012
JAMES WARE
United States District Chief Judge

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

1

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

2

Alexander K Talarides [e-mail]
Dustin Lamm Schubert [e-mail]
Edward F. Haber [e-mail]
Ian J. McLoughlin [e-mail]
Jason A. Pikler [e-mail]
Justin M. Lichterman [e-mail]
Michelle H. Blauner [e-mail]
Robert P. Varian [e-mail]
Virginia Hope Johnson [e-mail]
Willem F. Jonckheer [e-mail]

3
4
5
6
7
8

Dated: August 27, 2012

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

By:

/s/ JW Chambers
William Noble
Courtroom Deputy