Abrams v. MetroPCS Communications, Inc. et al

Filing 26

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 3/14/2014. Motion Hearing set for 3/28/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jeffrey S. White. Case Management Statement due by 4/18/2014. Case Management Conference set for 4/25/2014 11:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor, Oakland.. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 1/6/14. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

GEORGE ABRAMS,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Plaintiff,

No. C 13-02878 JSW

v.
METROPCS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et
al.,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
REGARDING JURISDICTION

13
Defendants.
14

/

15
16

The Court has an independent obligation to determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear

17

this matter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or

18

otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the

19

action.”); see also FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990) (stating that the

20

district court has an independent obligation to determine subject matter jurisdiction). If the

21

Court determines that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the Court must dismiss the case.

22

Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

23

In his first amended complaint (“FAC”), plaintiff George Abrams (“Plaintiff”) alleges

24

subject matter jurisdiction exists based on the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C.

25

section 1331(d)(2), and based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a).

26

(FAC, ¶¶ 3, 4.) However, based on Plaintiff’s allegations, it is not clear that the requisite

27

amount in controversy is satisfied. Due to the fact that Plaintiff alleges defendants Metropcs

28

Communications, Inc., Metropcs Wireless, Inc., and T-Mobile US, Inc. (collectively,

1

“Defendants”) failed to provide him with three days of service, it is unlikely that the amount in

2

controversy is equal to or exceeds $75,000 for his individual claims. Moreover, any members

3

of a purported class would be limited to those customers who opted out of the arbitration

4

agreement and paid their bill late, but no more that thirty days late. The Court, thus, has

5

concerns that the amount in controversy for the purported class would be equal to or exceed

6

$5,000,000. However, the Court notes that Defendants are the ones that have the information

7

on potential class members. Therefore, the Court HEREBY ORDERS Plaintiff to Show Cause

8

in writing by no later than March 14, 2014, that subject matter jurisdiction exists. Plaintiff shall

9

conduct discovery to determine the number of individuals who may be members of the
purported class. The Court FURTHER ORDERS that the hearing on Defendants’ motion to

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

dismiss is CONTINUED to March 28, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. and that the case management

12

conference is CONTINUED to April 25, 2014 at 11:00 a.m.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: January 6, 2014
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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