Swartz v. Daves Killer Bread, Inc.

[2] 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [5] 6 DAVID SWARTZ, Case No. 4:21-cv-10053-YGR 7 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CAFA v. JURISDICTION [8] 9 DAVE’S KILLED BREAD, INC. AND Dkt. No. 1 FLOWERS FOODS, INC. [10] Defendant. [12] TO PLAINTIFF DAVID SWARTZ AND HIS COUNSEL OF RECORD: [13] YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING no later than May [14] 17, 2022, why plaintiff’s claims should not be dismissed for failing to establish that jurisdiction is [15] proper pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d)(2). [16] Pursuant to CAFA, this Court has original jurisdiction over class actions in which there are [17] at least 100 class members, at least one of which is diverse in citizenship from any defendant, and [18] for which the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $5 million, exclusive of interest [19] and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d)(2). The party asserting that jurisdiction is proper bears the burden [20] of establishing federal jurisdiction. Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 685 (9th Cir. 2006). [21] One may demonstrate minimal diversity by showing that “any class member is a citizen of [22] a state different from any defendant.” Serrano v. 180 Connect, Inc., 478 F.3d 1018, 1021 (9th Cir. [23] 2007); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d)(2)(A). While CAFA does not require “complete diversity,” [24] see Serrano, 478 F.3d at 1021 , this does not discharge one’s burden to “allege affirmatively the [25] citizenship of the relevant parties.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. [26] 2001). A “natural person’s state citizenship is . . . determined by [his or] her state of domicile, not [27] [his or] her state of residence.” Id.; see also Mondragon v. Capital One Auto Finance, 736 F.3d ] 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 10 || “an individual and a resident of Oakland, California,” and defendants are Oregon and Georgia 11 corporations. (Id. at §§ 9-11.) Absent more, plaintiffs 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 3 15 exists. On this basis, plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that the diversity requirement is 16 || satisfied. i 17 Accordingly, plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing no later than Zz 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 IT Is SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: May 9, 2022 ONNE GONZ/ALEZAROGERS 4} 25 UTED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE