Gitson et al v. Trader Joe's Company

Filing 93

ORDER directing parties to file supplemental briefs by June 2, 2014 and rescheduling hearing to June 26, 2014. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 5/19/14. (vclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/19/2014)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

AMY GITSON, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-01333-VC

Plaintiffs,
5
v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

6
7

TRADER JOE'S COMPANY,
Defendant.

8
9
10

Plaintiffs Amy Gitson and Deborah Ross, both California residents, bring this putative

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

class action against Defendant Trader Joe's Company, a California corporation. Plaintiffs allege

12

that the labels on several Trader Joe's food products violate California law.

13

Plaintiffs allege that federal jurisdiction is proper under the Class Action Fairness Act of

14

2005 ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Trader Joe's has not contested this assertion. However, "a

15

district court's duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction is not contingent upon the parties'

16

arguments." United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir.

17

2004). Lack of subject matter jurisdiction "cannot be waived or . . . overcome by an agreement of

18

the parties." Id. at 966-67; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) ("If the court determines at any time

19

that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.").

20

By no later than June 2, 2014, the parties are directed to file simultaneous briefs, not to

21

exceed 12 pages, addressing whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. At

22

a minimum, the briefs should address, in whatever order the parties deem appropriate:

23
24
25

1. Whether two-thirds of the members of the proposed class are citizens of California.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B).
2. Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to decline jurisdiction if more than

26

one-third but fewer than two-thirds of the potential class members are citizens of California. See

27

id. § 1332(d)(3).

28

3. Whether the California statutes upon which Plaintiffs base their claims apply to

1
2
3

products bought by residents of other states from stores located in other states.
4. Whether, if the California statutes do not apply to transactions outside California, the
Court has any basis to exercise jurisdiction.

4

To give the parties and the Court sufficient time to examine these issues, the hearing

5

currently scheduled for May 29, 2014 is rescheduled for June 26, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. At that

6

hearing, the parties should be prepared to discuss issues related to subject matter jurisdiction as

7

well as the pending motion to dismiss.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 19, 2014
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2