Nikita Santino et al v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 33

Order Granting 12 Motion to Remand. The Clerk shall remand this case to Los Angeles County Superior Court and CLOSE THE FILE. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 5/7/2018. (mdllc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/7/2018) Modified on 5/7/2018 (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

NIKITA SANTINO, et al.,

Case No. 18-cv-02486-EJD

Plaintiffs,
9

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
REMAND

v.
10
11

Re: Dkt. No. 12

APPLE INC.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.
12
13
14

Plaintiffs Nikita Santino and Aaron Rabbanian (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move to remand

15

this putative class action to Los Angeles County Superior Court on the basis that Defendant Apple

16

Inc. (“Apple”) has failed to show that any member of the putative class is a non-California citizen.

17

This Court agrees that Apple has not met its initial burden and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to

18

remand.

19

In January 2018, Plaintiffs initiated this putative class action against Apple in Los Angeles

20

County Superior Court. Dkt. No. 1-1 (“Compl.”). Plaintiffs assert a number of causes of action

21

under California law based on Apple’s alleged “intentional and purposeful degradation of speed of

22

Apple’s iPhone 6s and iPhone 6s Plus models . . . through software updates iOS 10.2.1 and

23

above.” Id. ¶ 1. In February 2018, Apple removed the action to this Court under the Class Action

24

Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiffs now argue that remand to state court is

25

appropriate because CAFA’s minimal-diversity requirement is not satisfied. Dkt. No. 12.

26

A class action case may be removed under CAFA when there is minimal diversity of

27

citizenship between the parties, the proposed class has at least 100 members, and the amount in

28

Case No.: 18-cv-02486-EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND
1

1

controversy exceeds $5 million. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). For present purposes, the crucial element is

2

the minimal-diversity requirement. In the statute’s words, “[one] member of [the] class of

3

plaintiffs [must be] a citizen of a State different from [one] defendant.” Id. § 1332(d)(2)(A); Chan

4

Healthcare Grp., PS v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 844 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining

5

that, under CAFA, “one plaintiff [must be] a citizen of a different state than one defendant”). As

6

the removing party, Apple carries the burden of establishing this element. See Kuxhausen v.

7

BMW Fin. Servs. NA LLC, 707 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 2013). Because Apple is a citizen of

8

California and the sole defendant, Compl. ¶ 15, the relevant question is whether at least one

9

member of Plaintiffs’ proposed classes is a non-California citizen.
Apple urges the Court to narrowly focus attention on Plaintiffs’ proposed class definitions,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

which define the classes as “[a]ll California residents who purchased any of the [relevant iPhone

12

models]” with iOS 10.2.1 pre-installed or later installed. Id. ¶ 46. If such a limited inquiry were

13

appropriate, Apple would have a stronger argument that Plaintiffs’ putative classes include non-

14

California citizens: the law permits residence in one state but citizenship in another, and Plaintiffs’

15

class definitions reference only the former. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857

16

(9th Cir. 2001) (“A person residing in a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is

17

not necessarily a citizen of that state.”).1 But Apple offers no persuasive support for its blinkered

18

approach. In fact, Apple’s own authority recognizes that while “courts generally look to the

19

plaintiff’s proposed class definition,” other allegations and statements in the plaintiff’s remand

20

motion may also be considered. Gallagher v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Cos., 169 F. Supp. 3d

21

598, 603 (D.N.J. 2016). Although the class definitions play an important role, they are not the

22

controlling factor. See Garcia v. Task Ventures, LLC, No. 16-CV-00809-BAS, 2016 WL

23

7093915, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2016).

24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes, however, that “[t]he place where a person lives is taken to be his domicile until
facts adduced establish the contrary.” Anderson v. Watts, 138 U.S. 694, 706 (1891); NewGen,
LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 614 (9th Cir. 2016).
Case No.: 18-cv-02486-EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND
2

1

Once the Court widens the lens beyond Plaintiffs’ class definitions, another allegation in

2

the complaint is all but dispositive. Specifically, the complaint alleges that “Plaintiffs, members

3

of the proposed Classes, and Defendant are all citizens of California.” Compl. ¶ 11. The most

4

natural reading of that sentence is that all members of the classes, including Plaintiffs, are citizens

5

of California. Apple construes the language to say that some class members are California

6

citizens, but that interpretation requires mangling the words or adding words that are not there.

7

The Court opts for the construction which hews to the language by recognizing that “all” of the

8

listed persons (“Plaintiffs, members of the proposed Classes, and Defendant”) are “citizens of

9

California.” So understood, the allegation strongly favors Plaintiffs’ interpretation, which
produces coherence across the pleadings by giving meaning to all of the allegations, over Apple’s

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

interpretation, which asks the Court to disregard that paragraph in the complaint. The Court also

12

rejects Apple’s related attempt to override the clear statement in Plaintiffs’ complaint by reference

13

to case law because none of Apple’s cited authority involved such an explicit allegation bearing on

14

the citizenship of the class members.

15

Moreover, Plaintiffs have “clarified in [their] motion to remand that the class members in

16

this action are [California] citizens.” Gallagher, 169 F. Supp. 3d at 604. Plaintiffs’ clarification is

17

wholly consistent with the pleadings, and Plaintiffs are “master[s] of the complaint.” Caterpillar

18

Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 398–99 (1987). Plaintiffs’ understanding is further reinforced by

19

the fact that they allege causes of action based on California law. See Rotenberg v. Brain

20

Research Labs LLC, No. 09-CV-02914-SC, 2009 WL 2984722, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2009)

21

(“Plaintiff’s interpretation of his own Complaint is bolstered by the fact that it invokes only causes

22

of action founded in California statutory law.”). The Court does not suggest that these additional

23

considerations are dispositive, but they better lend themselves to Plaintiffs’ interpretation. Apple

24

does not identify any similar indicators that point the other way.

25

To be sure, Plaintiffs’ class definitions could have been clearer. “[T]he plaintiffs might

26

have defined their class as all [California] citizens . . . . By using that definition, the plaintiffs

27

could have guaranteed that the suit would remain in state court.” In re Sprint Nextel Corp., 593

28

Case No.: 18-cv-02486-EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND
3

1

F.3d 669, 676 (7th Cir. 2010). Nevertheless, the fairest reading of Plaintiffs’ complaint is that it

2

restricts the putative classes to California citizens. See Compl. ¶ 11 (“Plaintiffs, members of the

3

proposed Classes, and Defendant are all citizens of California.”). Because Apple has not shown

4

that the minimal-diversity requirement is satisfied, this Court may not exercise jurisdiction under

5

CAFA. With no other basis of federal jurisdiction being invoked or apparent, the Court GRANTS

6

Plaintiffs’ motion to remand.

7

The Clerk shall remand this case to Los Angeles County Superior Court and close the file.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: May 7, 2018
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No.: 18-cv-02486-EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND
4