Dunson et al v. Cordis Corporation
Filing
27
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CAFA JURISDICTION (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 7/21/2016)
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
JERRY DUNSON, et al.,
Case No. 16-cv-03076-SI
Plaintiffs,
6
v.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CAFA
JURISDICTION
7
8
CORDIS CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Defendant Cordis Corporation (“Cordis”), which is headquartered in California, removed
12
this action to federal court on June 6, 2016 and promptly filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ first
13
amended complaint (“FAC”), which the Court granted in part.
14
Removal); Dkt. No. 7 (Motion); Dkt. No. 19 (Amended Motion); Dkt. No. 20 (Order).
15
Defendants are now ordered to show cause regarding why this case should not be dismissed for
16
lack of jurisdiction.
17
See Dkt. No. 1 (Notice of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) provides that “[i]f the court determines at any
18
time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”
See also
19
Mansfield, C. & L.M.R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382 (1884) (concluding that challenge to a
20
federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction may be made at any stage of the proceedings, and the
21
court should raise the question sua sponte).
22
Defendants allege in their notice of removal that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the
23
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), or CAFA. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 18. “CAFA
24
provides the federal district courts with original jurisdiction to hear a class action if the class has
25
more than 100 members[.]” Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345, (2013) (internal
26
quotation marks omitted) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5)(B)). By the Court’s count there are
27
currently 8 plaintiffs in the present case. See Dkt. No. 1-1 (FAC).
28
It appears by defendant’s notice of removal that they seek to include, for the sake of
1
achieving the “100 member” numerosity requirement, all the plaintiffs in 9 separate cases
2
currently pending before 9 different judges in this district:
3
Dunson, et al. v. Cordis Corp., et al., 3:16-cv-03076-SI (Illston, J.) (8 plaintiffs)
4
Quinn, et al. v. Cordis Corp., et al., 3:16-cv-03080-WHO (Orrick, J.) (12 plaintiffs)
5
Resovsky v. Cordis Corp., et al., 3:16-cv-03082-EMC (Chen, J.) (7 plaintiffs)
6
Grant, et al. v. Cordis Corp., et al., 3:16-cv-03083-HSG (Gilliam, J.) (20 plaintiffs)
7
Herbert, et al. v. Cordis Corp., et al., 3:16-cv-03085-JST (Tigar, J.) (12 plaintiffs)
8
Holden, et al. v. Cordis Corp., et al., 3:16-cv-03087-TEH (Henderson, J.) (21
plaintiffs)
9
Oehring, et al. v. Cordis Corp., et al., 4:16-cv-03088-JSW (White, J.) (34
plaintiffs)
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Barber, et al. v. Cordis Corp., et al., 3:16-cv-03086-JD (Donato, J.) (27 plaintiffs)
12
Sutton, et al. v. Cordis Corp., et al., 3:16-cv-04012-VC (Chhabria, J.) (3 plaintiffs)
13
Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 1-11.
14
A motion to remand is pending in several of these cases. See Dkt. No. 16, 3:16-cv-03080-
15
WHO (Orrick, J.); Dkt. No. 15, 3:16-cv-03083-HSG (Gilliam, J.); Dkt. No. 14, 3:16-cv-03085-
16
JST (Tigar, J.); Dkt. No. 20, 4:16-cv-03088-JSW (White, J.); Dkt. No. 17, 3:16-cv-03086-JD
17
(Donato, J.). Judge Chen recently issued an order to show cause re: jurisdiction in case number
18
16-cv-03082, questioning defendant’s removal on the basis of CAFA jurisdiction given the 7
19
plaintiffs in that case. See Dkt. No. 22, 3:16-cv-03082-EMC.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
None of the above cases are consolidated. Should any of the pending remand motions be
granted some of the cases will be in state court while others remain in federal court.
Defendants are ORDERED to show cause, in writing to be filed no later than July 28,
2016, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July21, 2016
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
28
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?