Alejandra Chaisson v. University of Southern California

DISCUSSION

“CAFA vests federal courts with original diversity jurisdiction over class actions where (1) the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000; (2) any class member is a citizen of a state different from any defendant; and (3) there are at least 100 class members.” Brinkley v. Monterey Fin. Servs., Inc., 873 F.3d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2) & (5)(B)). However, “Congress provided exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction[.]” See Adams v. West Marine Products, Inc., 958 F.3d 1216, 1220 (9th Cir. 2020). Plaintiffs seek remand pursuant to one of those exceptions, the “discretionary home state exception,” (see Dkt. 22-1, Plaintiffs’ Renewed Memorandum in Support of Renewed Motion to Remand and for Fees and Costs (“Memo.”) at 2-7), which permits a court to decline to exercise jurisdiction “in the interests of justice” when “greater than one-third” of the putative class members and the primary defendants “are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed[.]” See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(3). In deciding whether to exercise its discretion to remand a case pursuant to the discretionary home state exception, the court considers the…