Pham et al v. Capital Holdings, Inc. et al

Filing 42

ORDER granting 40 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction: This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own fees and costs for litigating in federal court. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 8/22/11. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lmt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

CHI PHAM and FRANK NGUYEN, on
Behalf of Themselves and Others
Similarly Situated,

13

CASE NO. 10cv0971-LAB (AJB)
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiffs,
vs.

14
15

CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC., a California
Corporation; et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
18

On August 9, 2011 the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ RICO claims — the only federal

19

claims in their lawsuit — and indicated it would not retain supplemental jurisdiction over their

20

state law claims. It gave Plaintiffs 14 days to show that the Court still has jurisdiction over

21

those claims pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, which requires a class of 100 or

22

more persons, an amount in controversy greater than $5 million, and minimal diversity. See

23

Serrano v. 180 Connect, Inc., 478 F.3d 1018, 1020–21 (9th Cir. 2007); 28 U.S.C. §

24

1332(d)(2).

25

Plaintiffs now contend that they can satisfy these requirements, but that the “local

26

controversy” and “home-state controversy” exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction apply to their

27

claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A) & (B). Even when a district court has jurisdiction

28

under § 1332(d)(2), it “shall decline to exercise jurisdiction”
-1-

10cv0971

1
2
3

(I) over a class action in which–
(I) greater than two-thirds of the members of all
proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate are
citizens of the State in which the action was
originally filed;

4
(II) at least 1 defendant is a defendant–
5
6

(aa) from whom significant relief is
sought by members of the plaintiff
class;

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

(bb) whose alleged conduct forms a
significant basis for the claims
asserted by the proposed plaintiff
class; and
(cc) who is a citizen of the State in
which the action was originally filed;
and
(III) principal injuries resulting from the alleged
conduct or any related conduct of each defendant
were incurred in the State in which the action was
originally filed; and

14

16

(ii) during the 3-year period preceding the filing of that class
action, no other class action has been filed asserting the same
or similar factual allegations against any of the defendants on
behalf of the same or other persons . . . .

17

28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A). A district court should also decline to exercise jurisdiction under

18

§ 1332(d)(2) when “two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the

19

aggregate, and the primary defendants, are citizens of the State in which the action was

20

originally filed.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B).

15

21

Plaintiffs appear to be concerned that, with no basis for jurisdiction, the Court is

22

inclined to dismiss their state law claims with prejudice, and also inclined to award fees and

23

costs to the Defendants. They argue against each and seek a voluntary dismissal by the

24

Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)((2). That is fine, but not necessary. When the Court

25

dismisses a plaintiff’s federal claims and chooses not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction

26

over its state law claims — and when there is no other basis for federal jurisdiction — it

27

simply dismisses the case in a manner that allows the plaintiff to bring it in state court. That

28
-2-

10cv0971

1

is the appropriate course of action here; while Plaintiffs’ RICO claims were ill-conceived, they

2

were not frivolous.

3
4

This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own fees
and costs for litigating in federal court.

5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 22, 2011

8
9

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

10cv0971