Lollock et al v. Oakmont Senior Living, LLC

Filing 16

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE HOME STATE AND LOCAL CONTROVERSY EXCEPTIONS. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 10/25/2017. Show Cause Response due by 11/1/2017. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DONALD LOLLOCK, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 17-cv-05912-JSW
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE HOME
STATE AND LOCAL CONTROVERSY
EXCEPTIONS

v.
OAKMONT SENIOR LIVING, LLC,

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Defendant.

12
13

On October 16, 2017, Defendant Oakmont Senior Living, LLC (“Oakmont”), filed a

14

Notice of Removal, in which it asserts that the Court has jurisdiction under the Class Action

15

Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. section 1332(d). Defendant asserts that “numerous members

16

of the proposed class of Plaintiffs are citizens of a different state from Oakmont.” (Notice of

17

Removal, ¶ 11; see also Declaration of Nicole Wesner, ¶¶ 2-3.) Oakmont also asserts that as an

18

“unincorporated association,” under CAFA it is a citizen of California. (Notice of Removal, ¶ 10;

19

Declaration of Joe Lin, ¶ 2; Notice of Removal, Ex. 3.)

20

CAFA contains a “local controversy” exception, which provides that a “‘district court shall

21

decline to exercise jurisdiction’ over a class action in which the plaintiff class and at least one

22

defendant meet certain characteristics that essentially make the case a local controversy.” Serrano

23

v. 180 Connect, Inc., 478 F.3d 1018, 1022 (9thc Cir. 2007) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4))

24

(emphasis added). Specifically, Section 1332(d)(4)(A) provides that a court shall decline to

25

exercise jurisdiction over:

26

(A)(i) over a class action in which--

27

(I) greater than two-thirds of the members of all proposed plaintiff
classes in the aggregate are citizens of the State in which the action
was originally filed;

28

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

(II) at least 1 defendant is a defenda
ant-(aa) from whom signific relief is sought by m
w
cant
s
members of t
the
plaintiff class;
(bb) whose alleged cond forms a significant basis for the claims
duct
e
asserted by the proposed plaintiff cl
d
lass; and
(cc) who is a citizen of the State in w
t
which the ac
ction was ori
iginally
filed; and
(III) princip injuries re
pal
esulting from the alleged conduct or any
m
d
r
related cond of each defendant w
duct
were incurred in the State in
d
e
which the ac
ction was or
riginally filed and
d;
(ii) during th 3-year pe
he
eriod precedi the filing of that clas action,
ing
g
ss
no other cla action has been filed asserting the same or sim
ass
s
e
milar
factual alleg
gations again any of th defendants on behalf o the
nst
he
s
of
same or other persons[.]
]
CAFA also contain a “home-state controv
ns
versy” except
tion, which p
provides tha a court
at

12

sha decline to exercise jur
all
o
risdiction ov a class ac
ver
ction in whic “two-third or more o the
ch
ds
of

13

me
embers of all proposed plaintiff class in the agg
l
ses
gregate, and the primary defendants, are citizens
d
y
s

14

of the State in which the ac
t
w
ction was ori
iginally filed 28 U.S.C § 1332(d)
d.”
C.
)(4)(B); see a
also

15

Ser
rrano, 478 F.3d at 1022F
-23. Althoug these exc
gh
ceptions are n jurisdict
not
tional, in ligh of the
ht

16

alle
egations in the Complain and Oakm
nt
mont’s appare citizensh the Cour HEREBY ORDERS
ent
hip,
rt
Y

17

Oa
akmont to show cause wh this case does not fall within the exceptions o
hy
l
outlined in S
Section

18

133
32(d)(4)(A) or Section 1332(d)(4)(B and, thus, why the case should no be remand
1
B),
,
ot
ded. See,

19

e.g Dugas v. Starwood Ho
g.,
S
otels & Reso Worldwi Inc., No 3:16-cv-00
orts
ide,
o.
0014-GPC-B
BLM, 2017

20

WL 2813712, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 28, 2017) (rais
L
a
C
,
sing issue sua sponte); B v. SolarW
a
Bey
World

21

Ind
dustries Ame
erica, Inc., 904 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 11 08 (D. Or. 2
2012) (same)
).

22

Oakmont’s respons to this Ord to Show Cause shall be due by N
se
der
November 1, 2017. If

23

the Court deter
e
rmines a resp
ponse from the Plaintiffs is warrante it will iss a further order
t
s
ed,
sue

24

setting a deadli by which Plaintiffs should respon
ine
h
s
nd.

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: October 25, 2017
r
___
__________
___________
__________
________
JEF
FFREY S. W
WHITE
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge
2