Jones

I. BACKGROUND

21 Before the Court is Plaintiff Julie Jones’ motion to remand to state court her class 22 action against Defendants Tonal Systems, Inc. (“Tonal”) and John Does 1-100 pursuant 23 to the mandatory home-state controversy exception of the Class Action Fairness Act 24 (“CAFA”). 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B). Tonal is a California-headquartered manufacturer 25 of internet-enabled home fitness equipment. Complaint, ECF No. 1-2 ¶ 4. Jones’ 26 Complaint, filed originally in the Superior Court of California, accuses Tonal of 27 “allow[ing] Third Parties to “wiretap and eavesdrop on the chat conversations of all its 28 website visitors” in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), Cal. Penal Code §§ 630-638; California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; and the California Constitution’s right to privacy provision, Cal. Const. art. I, § 1. Compl. ¶ 13. Defendants removed the action to this Court, and Plaintiffs timely filed the instant motion to remand it. For the foregoing reasons, the motion is DENIED. II. PLAINTIFF’S BURDEN UNDER THE MANDATORY HOME STATE CONTROVERSY…