UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. 25-1672 FMO (KESx) Date September 8, 2025 Title Robin Victoria Savage v. Revion Consumer Products LLC

Present: The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge Vanessa Figueroa None None Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorney Present for Plaintiff: Attorney Present for Defendant: None Present None Present Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Subject Matter Jurisdiction Jurisdiction in this case is asserted on the basis of the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA’), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). (See Dkt. 1, Complaint (“Compl.”) at J 7). “CAFA provides expanded original diversity jurisdiction for class actions meeting the amount in controversy and minimal diversity and numerosity requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).” United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg., Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv. Workers Int'l Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. Shell Oil Co., 602 F.3d 1087, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2010). Under that provision, “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is a class action in which . . . any member of a Class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). Having reviewed the Complaint, the court finds that plaintiff's jurisdictional allegations are deficient with respect to the minimal diversity requirements under CAFA. Specifically, plaintiff has failed to adequately allege the citizenship of Revlon Consumer Products LLC. Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[A]n LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.”). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. No later than September 15, 2025, plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint demonstrating the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The Order to Show Cause will stand submitted upon the filing of a First Amended Complaint that addresses the issues raised in this Order on or before the date indicated above. 2. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to timely file a First Amended Complaint may result in this action being dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388 (1962); Edwards, 356 F.3d at 1065.

Initials of Preparer vdr