Smith v. Lux Retail North America, Inc.

Filing 22

ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSIONS. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 5/22/2013. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

No. C 13-01579 WHA
Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

EMILY SMITH, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,

12

v.

13
14

ORDER REQUESTING
SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSIONS

LUX RETAIL NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive,
Defendants.
/

15
16

Plaintiff contends that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Our court of appeals

17

held that “where the plaintiff has pled an amount in controversy less than $5,000,000, the party

18

seeking removal must prove with legal certainty that CAFA’s jurisdictional amount is met.”

19

Lowdermilk v U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 1000 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Bonnel v.

20

Best Buy Stores, L.P., 881 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1171 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (Judge Edward Chen)

21

(affidavit by Human Resources manager insufficient evidentiary support). Defendant’s counsel

22

shall make such a showing in a submission not to exceed ten pages by TUESDAY, MAY 28 AT

23

NOON.

Plaintiff may respond to this by THURSDAY, MAY 30 AT NOON.

24
25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 22, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE