Dana Rhinerson, et al -v- Van's International Foods, Inc.

Filing 38

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 5/7/14. (Filed on 5/9/2014)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

DANA RHINERSON, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-05923-VC

Plaintiffs,
5
v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

6
7

VAN'S INTERNATIONAL FOODS, INC.,
Defendant.

8
9
10

Plaintiffs Dana Rhinerson and Aidin Moradi bring this putative class action against

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Defendant Van's International Foods, Inc. ("Van's"), seeking to represent two classes of people

12

who purchased Van's food products: a nationwide class and a class comprising solely California

13

residents. On behalf of the California class, Plaintiffs—themselves California residents—allege

14

that Van's has violated several California statutes. Plaintiffs also allege a number of common law

15

claims on behalf of both classes. They do not bring any claims under federal law.

16

In their complaint, Plaintiffs allege that "jurisdiction is proper in this Court under 28

17

U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (controversy arising under United

18

States law." (Compl. ¶ 6). In the parties' joint case management statement, Plaintiffs contend that

19

federal jurisdiction is proper under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. §

20

1332(d). (Docket No. 31). However, "a district court's duty to establish subject matter

21

jurisdiction is not contingent upon the parties' arguments." United Investors Life Ins. Co. v.

22

Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2004). Lack of subject matter jurisdiction

23

"cannot be waived or . . . overcome by an agreement of the parties." Id. at 966-67; see also Fed.

24

R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) ("If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction,

25

the court must dismiss the action.").

26

By no later than May 16, 2014, the parties are directed to file simultaneous briefs, not to

27

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

28

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

1
2
3

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

4

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

5

id. § 1332(d)(3).

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

3. Whether federal jurisdiction exists based on anything other than the nationwide class
claims under common law.
4. Whether, if the only jurisdictional hook is the nationwide class claims under common
law, such claims are cognizable.
The parties should be prepared to discuss these jurisdictional questions at the May 29,
2014 hearing.

12
13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 7, 2014
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

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