Jennifer Spargifiore v. Panda Restaurant Group, Inc.

DISCUSSION

The background of this dispute is reflected in the Court’s prior Order Staying Motion for Remand Pending Jurisdictional Discovery (Dkt. No. 23). Briefly, Plaintiff, a citizen of California, is suing Defendant, also a citizen of California, for wage and hour violations at Defendant’s California restaurants. Defendant removed the action ten months after it was filed, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). Defendant claimed it learned of at least one non- diverse class member, thus satisfying the CAFA’s minimum diversity requirement. Shortly after Defendant removed the action, Plaintiff sought jurisdictional discovery regarding whether any of the CAFA exceptions applied. CAFA includes

CV-90 (12/02) CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk CB

the following exceptions that are relevant here: (1) the mandatory local controversy exception (28 U.S.C. § 1332(D)(4)(A)); (2) the mandatory home state controversy exception (28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B)), and (3) the discretionary home state controversy exception (28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(3)). See Adams v. W. Marine Prod., Inc., 958 F.3d 1216, 1220 (9th Cir. 2020) (describing…