Swartz v. Daves Killer Bread, Inc. et al

Filing 30

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CAFA JURISDICTION. Show Cause Response due by 5/17/2022. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 5/9/2022. (amg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2022)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

DAVID SWARTZ,
Plaintiff,

7
8
9

v.
DAVE’S KILLED BREAD, INC. AND
FLOWERS FOODS, INC.

Case No. 4:21-cv-10053-YGR
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CAFA
JURISDICTION
Dkt. No. 1

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

Defendant.
TO PLAINTIFF DAVID SWARTZ AND HIS COUNSEL OF RECORD:
YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING no later than May
17, 2022, why plaintiff’s claims should not be dismissed for failing to establish that jurisdiction is
proper pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).
Pursuant to CAFA, this Court has original jurisdiction over class actions in which there are
at least 100 class members, at least one of which is diverse in citizenship from any defendant, and
for which the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $5 million, exclusive of interest
and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). The party asserting that jurisdiction is proper bears the burden
of establishing federal jurisdiction. Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 685 (9th Cir. 2006).
One may demonstrate minimal diversity by showing that “any class member is a citizen of
a state different from any defendant.” Serrano v. 180 Connect, Inc., 478 F.3d 1018, 1021 (9th Cir.
2007); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A). While CAFA does not require “complete diversity,”
see Serrano, 478 F.3d at 1021, this does not discharge one’s burden to “allege affirmatively the
citizenship of the relevant parties.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir.
2001). A “natural person’s state citizenship is . . . determined by [his or] her state of domicile, not
[his or] her state of residence.” Id.; see also Mondragon v. Capital One Auto Finance, 736 F.3d

1

880, 884 (9th Cir. 2013) (noting that just because a person “may have a residential address in

2

California does not mean that person is a citizen of California”). Accordingly, allegations of a

3

person’s state of residence, alone, are insufficient to establish his or her citizenship. See, e.g.,

4

Seven Resorts, Inc. v. Cantlen, 57 F.3d 771, 774 (9th Cir. 1995) (concluding that a plaintiff’s

5

allegation that he was a “resident of Oregon” was insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction);

6

Woodruff v. Premium Cap. Funding, LLC, No. C 09-3300 VRW, 2009 WL 10694370, at *3 (N.D.

7

Cal. Oct. 21, 2009) (“A statement indicating a party’s ‘residency’ does not sufficiently allege her

8

citizenship.’”).

9

Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No 1), alleges that minimal diversity exists because plaintiff is
“an individual and a resident of Oakland, California,” and defendants are Oregon and Georgia

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

corporations. (Id. at ¶¶ 9-11.) Absent more, plaintiff’s current assertion of his state of residence is

12

insufficient to establish his citizenship. See Cantlen, 57 F.3d at 774; Woodruff, 2009 WL

13

10694370, at *3. Because plaintiff’s current allegations are inadequate, the Court cannot

14

determine whether there is minimal diversity and, subsequently, whether CAFA jurisdiction

15

exists. On this basis, plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that the diversity requirement is

16

satisfied.

17

Accordingly, plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing no later than

18

May 17, 2022, why jurisdiction is proper and that the amount in controversy requirement is

19

satisfied. The response shall not exceed more than six (6) pages. Failure to file a timely response

20

will result in the case being dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

21
22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 9, 2022
______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2