CLRB Hanson Industries, LLC et al v. Google Inc.

Filing 101

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION (jwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2006)

Download PDF
CLRB Hanson Industries, LLC et al v. Google Inc. Doc. 101 Case 5:05-cv-03649-JW Document 101 Filed 10/30/2006 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION CLRB Hanson Industries, LLC d/b/a Industrial Printing, and Howard Stern, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Google Inc., Defendant. / Plaintiffs, NO. C 05-03649 JW ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION United United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On September 12, 2005, Defendant Google, Inc. ("Defendant") removed this action pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. 1332(d) ("CAFA"). Under CAFA, a district court has "`original jurisdiction of any civil action in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and [the action] is a class action in which' the parties satisfy, among other requirements, minimal diversity." Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(2)). CAFA expressly provides that the claims of individual members shall be aggregated to determine the amount in controversy. 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(6). Plaintiffs have not challenged removal and concede in their Second Amended Class Action Complaint that the Court has jurisdiction under CAFA. (See Docket Item No. 47.) Having reviewed the papers and evidence submitted in conjunction with the parties' motions for summary judgment, the Court is doubtful as to whether the amount of damages sought by Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:05-cv-03649-JW Document 101 Filed 10/30/2006 Page 2 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Plaintiffs exceeds the jurisdictional threshold of $5,000,000. Of particular concern to the Court are the relatively small amounts by which each of the named Plaintiffs alleges to have been overcharged by Defendant. For example, named Plaintiff Howard Stern testifies by declaration that in certain months he was only overcharged by a couple of dollars: [M]y AdWords campaign ran for 4 days in the month of September 2005. During that time my daily budget was set at $10. Google should have charged me at most, $40. In fact, it charged me over 8% more ($43.25). In December 2005 my AdWords campaign ran for 2 days and my daily budget was $10. I should have been charged $20 by Google. In fact, it charged me over 6% more ($21.28). (Declaration of Howard Stern in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Docket Item No. 83, 6.) If such claims are typical of other class members, even with a class comprised of thousands, the amount in controversy requirement is not satisfied. Accordingly, the Court orders the parties to show cause why the case should not be remanded for lack of jurisdiction. A hearing on this matter is set for November 20, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. The parties shall submit opening briefs no later than November 8, 2006. Any reply briefs shall be filed no later than November 13, 2006. The hearing on the parties' motions for summary judgment is continued to January 22, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. Additionally, the case management conference currently scheduled for November 6, 2006 is continued to January 22, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: October 30, 2006 JAMES WARE United States District Judge 2 Case 5:05-cv-03649-JW Document 101 Filed 10/30/2006 Page 3 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Christopher M. Jhang cjhang@perkinscoie.com David T. Biderman dbiderman@perkinscoie.com Judith B. Gitterman gittj@perkinscoie.com Lester L Levy llevy@wolfpopper.com Lisa Delehunt ldelehunt@perkinscoie.com Michele Fried Raphael mraphael@wolfpopper.com Ryan M. Hagan rhagan@alexanderlaw.com William M. Audet waudet@alexanderlaw.com Dated: October 30, 2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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?