Jenkins et al v. The Whitestone Group, Inc.

Filing 24

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. Order to Show Cause Response due by 8/31/2015. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 8/14/15. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

GARRETT JENKINS, et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-04920-RS

Plaintiffs,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

v.
12
13

THE WHITESTONE GROUP, INC.,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR
LACK OF JURISDICTION

Defendant.
14
15
16

This putative class action was filed in San Francisco Superior Court on behalf of “more

17

than 50 security officers and/or guards” employed by defendant. Plaintiffs alleged they were

18

deprived of proper meal and rest breaks during the four year limitations period prior to the filing

19

of the complaint. The named plaintiffs all alleged they earned approximately $25 per hour. While

20

the complaint contains no calculations of each putative class member’s alleged total damages, it is

21

not readily apparent that they would exceed $75,000; rather, the most reasonable inference is to

22

the contrary.

23

Indeed, plaintiffs’ briefing submitted in support of preliminary settlement approval asserts

24

that the maximum claims of the 88 class members total just over $564,000, or less than $6,500

25

each. Even adding in additional claims for penalties and attorney fees, and granting that the total

26

claims would not have been divided equally among the class members, there is no reasonable

27

basis to infer that at least one class member could show the amount in controversy in his or her

28

claim satisfies the $75,000 threshold for diversity jurisdiction. Nor is there a basis to conclude the

1

aggregate claims meet the $5 million threshold for jurisdiction under CAFA. Under these

2

circumstances, therefore, jurisdiction appears to be lacking. See generally Exxon Mobil Corp. v.

3

Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005) (holding supplemental jurisdiction over claims under

4

the $75,000 threshold to be proper as long as at least one named plaintiff satisfies the amount in

5

controversy, but not allowing aggregation of claims as means of meeting the threshold).

6

Although the parties have reached a settlement of this matter, in the absence of jurisdiction,

7

the court is precluded from determining whether the parties’ agreement satisfies the criteria for

8

court approval of class action settlements. Accordingly, no later than August 31, 2015,

9

defendant, as the removing party, shall file a brief not to exceed 15 pages showing cause why this
matter should not be remanded to San Francisco Superior Court. No later than the same date,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

plaintiffs may, but are not required to, file a separate brief, also not to exceed 15 pages, addressing

12

the issue. Alternatively, the parties may file a stipulation and proposed order to remand, in the

13

event they agree jurisdiction is lacking. The hearing on the motion for preliminary settlement

14

approval set for August 27, 2015 is vacated, pending further order.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20
21

Dated: August 14, 2015
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

CASE NO.

2

14-cv-04920-RS