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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?