Michael Nathan v. Fry's Electronics Inc.

Good Law
607 F. App'x 623
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 15, 201513-55920California534 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Michael Nathan appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to a motion to dismiss on those grounds filed by defendants Fry’s Electronics, Inc., Vladimir Pleskov, Syed Fahad, and Nuance Communications, Inc (collectively, “Nuance”). . We affirm.

The district court correctly determined that it had jurisdiction over this putative class action pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). The parties agree that minimal diversity exists, as Nathan is a California citizen and Nuance Communications is a Delaware corporation whose principal place of business is Massachusetts. Nathan contests, however, whether the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Nathan’s state court complaint included claims on behalf of a putative “Plaintiff Class” of all persons who purchased Nuance Communications’s Dragon speech recognition software in California since August 1, 2008. When Nuance Communications filed its notice of removal pursuant to CAFA, it attached an affidavit from a Senior Vice President which stated that Nuance Communications’s sales in California during the relevant time period exceeded…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.