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

Filing 108

ORDER VACATING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. Signed by Judge James Ware on November 14, 2006. (jwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2006)

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

Doc. 108

Case 5:05-cv-03649-JW

Document 108

Filed 11/14/2006

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 VACATING 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 October 30, 2006, the Court ordered the parties to show cause why the case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (See Docket Item No. 101.) Certain evidence that the parties had submitted in conjunction with their motions for summary judgment indicated that the amount in controversy did not meet the jurisdictional threshold. The Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), pursuant to which Defendant removed this case, requires that the claims of the individual class members aggregate to more than $5,000,000 in order for a federal district court to have jurisdiction over a class action. See 28 U.S.C. 1332(d). In cases removed from state court, the removing defendant bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction, including any amount in controversy requirement. Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 682-83 (9th Cir. 2006). If the complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought, "the removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy requirement has been met." Id. at 683. Under this standard, "the defendant

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 5:05-cv-03649-JW

Document 108

Filed 11/14/2006

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

must provide evidence that it is `more likely than not' that the amount in controversy satisfies the federal diversity jurisdictional amount requirement." Id. (quoting Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir.1996)). Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, (hereafter "SAC," Docket Item No. 47), lacked detail as to what the claims of the individual class members­who alleged they had been overcharged through their participation in Defendant's advertising scheme­could potentially amount to. The Second Amended Complaint only indicated that (i) "thousands of people" have been damaged by Defendant's conduct, (SAC ¶ 70); (ii) "U.S. sales from advertiser-paid search results are expected to grow 25 percent this year to $3.2 billion," (SAC ¶ 39); and (iii) "[p]aid-search advertising generates about 98 percent of [Defendant's] revenues," (SAC ¶ 41). These allegations provided no indication that the amount of damages exceeds $5,000,000. In response to the order to show cause, the parties have provided additional information that establishes it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy requirement is met. According to the parties' recent submissions, Defendant has "hundreds of thousands of advertisers," (see Declaration of Heather Wilburn, Docket Item No. 103, ¶ 2), that generate billions of dollars in revenue for Defendant annually, (see Declaration of Michele F. Raphael, Docket Item No. 105, Ex. C). In light of the substantial number of advertisers and the substantial revenue that is derived from advertising, the Court finds that the amount in controversy is sufficiently alleged. Accordingly, the hearing on the order to show cause is VACATED. The hearing on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is set for January 22, 2006 at 9 AM.

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: November 14, 2006

JAMES WARE United States District Judge

2

Case 5:05-cv-03649-JW

Document 108

Filed 11/14/2006

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 [e-mail] David T. Biderman [e-mail] Judith B. Gitterman [e-mail] Lester L Levy [e-mail] Lisa Delehunt [e-mail] Michele Fried Raphael [e-mail] Ryan M. Hagan [e-mail] William M. Audet [e-mail] Dated: November 14, 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