Shams

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LELYLA SHAMS, Case No. 22-cv-01745 NC Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:

v. ARTICLE III STANDING;

CONTINUING CMC TO MAY 29,

REVATURE LLC, 2024, 11:30 A.M. BY ZOOM

WEBINAR

Defendant.

16 17 The Court has reviewed the joint status report at ECF 32 and needs more information before proceeding with plaintiff’s representative PAGA claims. The status report and prior arguments and orders in this case have focused on statutory standing for a 20 representative PAGA claim. E.g. ECF 18. But the Ninth Circuit has emphasized that 21 Article III standing must be satisfied in a “separate inquiry” under federal law. 22 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693, 715 (2013); Cooley v. v. ServiceMaster Co., LLC, 23 2024 WL 866123, at *2 (9th Cir. Feb. 29, 2024) (remanding for Article III standing 24 inquiry). 25 Before proceeding in federal court, the court must ensure that plaintiff Shams has 26 Article III standing. Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., 999…