Resovsky et al v. Cordis Corporation
Filing
22
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re Jurisdiction. Show Cause Response due by July 21, 2016 at 12:00 p.m. PST. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 7/18/2016. (emclc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
DAVID RESOVSKY, et al.,
7
Plaintiffs,
8
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
v.
9
10
CORDIS CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
11
12
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
Case No. 16-cv-03082-EMC
Defendant Coris Corporation removed the instant case on June 6, 2016, asserting that the
13
14
Court has jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) of 2005. See Docket No. 1
15
(Not. of Removal) at ¶ 18. Coris Corporation’s removal was based on a motion for consolidation
16
filed in Superior Court Case No. RG16814166 (the “Quinn” action), which sought to consolidate
17
eight actions for pre-trial purposes and the institution of a bellwether-trial process. Id. at ¶ 12. It
18
is unclear that this Court has jurisdiction, as based on the record it does not appear that the cases
19
were consolidated, see Docket No. 18 (Mayer Dec.), Exh. A, and it currently seems that only the
20
instant action is before this Court, with only seven plaintiffs named in the First Amended
21
Complaint. Docket No. 16-1.1 The parties are to file briefing explaining why the Court has
22
jurisdiction over this case by Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 12:00 p.m. PST.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
24
Dated: July 18, 2016
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
25
26
27
28
1
The original complaint filed in state court named four plaintiffs.
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?