Rebekah Prewitt et al v. Safeway Inc.

Filing 44

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND; DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY; DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME; DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO SUR-REPLY AND TAKE DEPOSITION OF MICHAEL REDGR AVE. Plaintiffs' motion for expedited jurisdictional discovery and plaintiffs' motion to remand are denied. In light of the ruling on plaintiffs' motions, defendant's motions are denied as moot. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on July 11, 2016. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/11/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 REBEKAH PREWITT, et al., Plaintiffs, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Case No. 16-cv-02753-MMC v. SAFEWAY INC., Defendant. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND; DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY; DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME; DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO SUR-REPLY AND TAKE DEPOSITION OF MICHAEL REDGRAVE 13 14 15 Before the Court are the following four motions: (1) plaintiffs’ “Motion to Remand Action to San Francisco Superior Court,” filed May 26, 2016; (2) defendant Safeway, 16 Inc.’s (“Safeway”) “Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Transfer to MDL No. 2705,” filed 17 June 16, 2016; (3) Safeway’s “Motion to Enlarge Time for Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to 18 Remand,” filed June 17, 2016; and (4) plaintiffs’ “Motion for an Order to Take the 19 Deposition of Michael Redgrave and to File a Brief Response to Safeway’s Sur-Reply to 20 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand,” filed July 1, 2016. All said motions have been fully briefed. 21 The Court, having read and considered the parties’ respective written submissions, 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 deems the matters suitable for decision thereon, hereby VACATES the hearings scheduled for July 22, 2016, and rules as follows. In light of the evidence Safeway has submitted in connection with its “Sur-Reply to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand,” filed June 30, 2016, the Court finds Safeway has met its burden to show removal of the above-titled action was proper under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). In particular, Safeway has 1 submitted sufficient evidence to support (1) a finding that the amount in controversy 2 exceeds the statutory threshold of $5,000,000, and (2) an inference that at least one, and 3 most likely considerably more than one, member of plaintiffs’ proposed class was, at the 4 time of removal, a citizen of a state other than California, the state of which Safeway is a 5 citizen. (See Redgrave Decl. ¶ 4 (calculating dollar amount of “sales of the [allegedly 6 mislabeled] Parmesan Cheese Products from all Safeway-operated stores in California 7 for the [proposed class] period of April 13, 2012, through June 1, 2016”), ¶ 7 (identifying 8 total number of customers who, during proposed class period, “used their [Safeway] Club 9 Card to purchase at least one of the Parmesan Cheese Products in Safeway-operated stores in California but who have a record address outside of California”); Mondragon v. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Capital One Auto Finance, 736 F.3d 880, 886 (9th Cir. 2013) (noting “numerous courts 12 treat a person’s residence as prima facie evidence of the person’s domicile”). Plaintiffs 13 have not submitted evidence to the contrary, nor have they shown they could develop 14 such evidence if permitted to depose defendant’s declarant. 15 16 17 18 19 20 Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion for expedited jurisdictional discovery and plaintiffs’ motion to remand are hereby DENIED.1 In light of the above ruling on plaintiffs’ motions, defendant’s motions are hereby DENIED as moot.2 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 11, 2016 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge 21 22 1 23 24 25 26 27 28 In their motion to remand, plaintiffs state that if the Court retains jurisdiction over the instant action, they “are prepared to file an amended complaint clarifying that . . . the proposed class . . . includes only California citizens.” (See Pl.’s Mot. to Remand at 13:67.) As plaintiffs have neither filed, nor requested leave to file, an amended complaint, the Court does not address herein the issue of whether such an amendment would deprive the Court of jurisdiction. 2 Although defendant’s motion to stay seeks such relief as to “all proceedings” (see Doc. No. 23 at 1:4), no motions remain pending at this time, and any currently set deadlines are well beyond the date by which defendant anticipates a determination by the MDL panel. 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?