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)
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?