1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NICHA LEASER, et al., individually, No. Case No. 2:20-CV-02502-DJC-AC and on behalf of others similarly 12 situated, 13 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

14 v.

15 PRIME ASCOT, L.P, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiffs filed this proposed class action in San Francisco Superior Court on 19 May 5, 2018, which was transferred to the Solano County Superior Court. Defendants 20 subsequently removed the case to this Court on December 17, 2020. Although the 21 claims arise entirely under state law, and there is not complete diversity between the 22 parties, the case was removed pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 23 which grants federal district courts original jurisdiction over class claims in which there 24 is minimal diversity, the number of proposed class members exceeds 100, and the 25 amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(2), (d)(5)(B). 26 Defendants established these requirements were met upon removing the action. 27 However, the CAFA contains two exceptions under which the court “shall 28 decline to exercise jurisdiction” otherwise permitted by section 1332(d)(2) known as 1 the “local controversy” and “home-state controversy” exceptions. 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1332(d)(4); , 631 F.3d 1010, 1013 (9th Cir. 3 2011); , 478 F.3d 1018, 1019 (9th Cir. 2007) (“. . . 4 § 1332(d)(4) sets out two circumstances that require district courts to decline 5 jurisdiction . . . .”). The exceptions “exist[] to ensure that ‘a truly local controversy’. . . 6 remains in state court.” , P.C., 842 F.3d 383, 7 397 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting S. Rep. No. 109-14, 39 (2005), reprinted in 2005 8 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3, 38). The local controversy exception arises where more than two- 9 thirds of the proposed class members, and at least one defendant from whom 10 significant relief is sought and whose conduct forms a significant basis for the claims, 11 are citizens of the state in which the action was originally filed, the principal injuries 12 were incurred in that state, and no class action against the defendant alleging similar 13 facts has been filed in the preceding three years. 28 U.S.C. §1332 (d)(4)(A). The 14 home-state controversy exception is met where two-thirds of the proposed class and 15 the primary defendants are citizens of the state in which the action was originally filed. 16 28 U.S.C. §1332 (d)(4)(B). 17 Upon review of the record, it appears that either of these exceptions may be 18 applicable to this action, and that the Court may therefore lack subject matter 19 jurisdiction over this case. “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the 20 district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded . . . .” See 21 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 22 //// 23 //// 24 //// 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Parties to show cause why this case 2 | should not be remanded to Solano County Superior Court for lack of jurisdiction. The 3 | Parties must file any pleadings related to this order within 30 days of the entry of this 4 | order. 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 | Dated: _ August 31, 2023 Bek | Cbabeatin.. Hon. Daniel labretta 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 DJC2 — 20-cv-02502.0sc 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28