Rey

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 DIANNA REY, et al., on behalf of Case No. 24-cv-04039-JD themselves and all others similarly situated, 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE REMAND 9 v. 10 BRISTOL HOSPICE, LLC, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 This action was removed to this Court on defendants’ allegation of jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) (CAFA). Dkt. No. 1 at 4. Plaintiffs have asked to remand the case to state court on the basis of the local controversy exception to CAFA jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 14; 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A). This exception is a “form of abstention,” Adams v. West Marine Products, Inc., 958 F.3d 1216, 1223 (9th Cir. 2020), that is narrowly construed to require the Court to decline to exercise jurisdiction when it applies, Benko v. Quality Loan Service Corp., 789 F.3d 1111, 1116 (9th Cir. 2015). The parties dispute, among other factors relevant to the exception, whether plaintiffs have demonstrated that the conduct of defendant Optimal Health Services, which defendants …