Fuentes v. Dish Network L.L.C.

Filing 190

ORDER DENYING 186 Motion to Remand. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 17, 2023. (jswlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2023)

Download PDF
Case 4:16-cv-02001-JSW Document 190 Filed 05/17/23 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NARCISO FUENTES, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 16-cv-02001-JSW ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND v. DISH NETWORK L.L.C., Re: Dkt. No. 186 Defendant. 12 13 Now before the Court for consideration is the motion to remand filed by Plaintiff Narciso 14 Fuentes (“Fuentes”). The Court has considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, and 15 the record in this case, and it DENIES Fuentes’ motion. 16 On or about March 7, 2016, Fuentes filed a complaint in the California Superior Court for 17 the County of Alameda, asserting putative class claims against Defendant Dish Network L.L.C. 18 (“Dish”) for alleged violations of California’s Home Solicitation Sales Act (the “HSSA claim”), 19 Civil Code section 1632 (the “CTA claim”), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (the “CLRA 20 claim”), and the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL claim”). Dish removed the case to this Court on 21 the basis that the Court had jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. This motion is 22 Fuentes’ first motion to remand. 23 During the course of this litigation, the Court resolved a motion to compel arbitration, 24 motions to dismiss, Fuentes’ motion for class certification, and the parties’ motions for summary 25 judgment. The Court denied the motion for class certification. The Court concluded Dish was 26 entitled to summary judgment on Fuentes’ CTA claim, the CLRA claim, in part, and the UCL 27 claim, in part. It concluded Fuentes was entitled to summary judgment on his claim for alleged 28 violations of the HSSA and the CLRA claim, and the UCL claim to the extent those claims Case 4:16-cv-02001-JSW Document 190 Filed 05/17/23 Page 2 of 3 1 depended on his HSSA claim. The parties agreed to enter into a stipulated judgment, under which Fuentes will recover United States District Court Northern District of California 2 3 damages in the amount of $2,590. Therefore, the only other relief available is Fuentes’ request for 4 public injunctive on the UCL and CLRA claims. However, Fuentes terminated his Dish 5 subscription in August 2017, has not subscribed since that time, and does not intend to subscribe 6 to Dish in the future. (See Dkt. No. 186-1, Declaration of Narciso Fuentes, ¶ 2; Dkt. No. 186-2, 7 Declaration of Kassandra Calderas, ¶¶ 1-3, Ex. A (Translation of Fuentes Declaration).) 8 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 9 Co. Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). In order for a district court to have subject matter jurisdiction 10 over a plaintiff’s claims, a plaintiff must present a live case or controversy, as required by Article 11 III of the U.S. Constitution. See U.S. Const. art. III section 2, cl. 1. In order for there to be a case 12 or controversy within the meaning of Article III, a plaintiff must have standing to pursue their 13 claims and must “maintain their personal interest in the dispute at all stages of litigation.” 14 TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190, 2208 (2021). “If at any time before final judgment it 15 appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 16 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “Standing is not dispensed in gross,” and a plaintiff must have standing for each form of 17 18 relief they seek. Id. The parties agree that Fuentes lacks standing to pursue injunctive relief. 19 Fuentes argues that requires the Court to remand the case for lack of jurisdiction. Dish argues that 20 because the Court has ruled on the question of liability on each of his claims, there are no 21 unadjudicated claims to remand. The Court agrees with Dish. See, e.g., Vaughn v. Tesla, Inc., 87 22 Cal. App. 5th 208, 236-237 (2023) (“A public injunction is sought by an aggrieved person in an 23 action filed on his or her own behalf, not on behalf of the general public, even though the primary 24 purpose and effect of the relief is to prohibit and enjoin conduct that is injurious to the general 25 public. … A public injunction is a unitary remedy that cannot be divided into ‘individual’ and 26 ‘representative’ components.”) (cleaned up). 27 // 28 // 2 Case 4:16-cv-02001-JSW Document 190 Filed 05/17/23 Page 3 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Fuentes’ motion to remand. The parties shall file the stipulated judgment by no later than May 26, 2023. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 17, 2023 ______________________________________ JEFFREY S. WHITE United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?