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)

Download PDF
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

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?