CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 20-5289 FMO (ASx) Date July 6, 2020 Title Luanny Cohen v. Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, LLC, et al.

Present: The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge Vanessa Figueroa None Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorney Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Remand Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, LLC and J.M. Smucker Company (“defendants”) removed this action on the basis of the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). (See Dkt. 1, Notice of Removal (“NOR”) at ¶ 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 NOR, the court questions whether the claims of the individual class members exceed $5,000,000 in the aggregate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2); Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574, U.S. 81, 89, 135 S.Ct. 547, 554 (2014) (“Evidence establishing the amount is required . . . when the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the defendant’s allegation.”). Defendants contend that “it is apparent that the amount in controversy here exceeds $5,000,000[,]” (Dkt. 1, NOR at ¶ 18), because “Plaintiff seeks, among other things, actual damages including . . . the price premium associated with and/or the full retail cost of the Nutrish Zero Grain dog food, restitution and disgorgement of all money or property wrongfully obtained by Defendants[.]” (See id. at ¶ 19). The NOR, however, does not provide sufficient facts for the court to determine whether the amount in controversy requirement has been satisfied. (See, generally, id.). Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. No later than July 13, 2020, defendants shall show cause in writing why this action should not be remanded for the reasons noted above. This deadline shall not extend the time for

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 20-5289 FMO (ASx) Date July 6, 2020 Title Luanny Cohen v. Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, LLC, et al. court. 2. Plaintiff shall file a reply to defendants’ OSC response no later than July 20, 2020.

00 : 00

Initials of Preparer vdr