Mirmalek v. Los Angeles Times Communications LLC
3:24-cv-01797
| N.D. Cal. | May 23, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Taliah Mirmalek sued Los Angeles Times Communications LLC in a putative class action, accusing it of violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) by using trackers to collect IP addresses without user consent.
- The class is defined as California residents who accessed the LATimes.com website in California and had their IP addresses collected by third-party trackers.
- Defendant removed the action to federal court, invoking the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”).
- Plaintiff sought remand to state court, arguing CAFA's “mandatory” or “discretionary” home-state exceptions applied due to the Californian makeup of the class.
- Central to the dispute is whether Plaintiff demonstrated that a sufficient proportion of the proposed class are citizens of California to trigger CAFA's exceptions.
- The court denied remand but allowed Plaintiff to conduct jurisdictional discovery to potentially renew her motion with better evidence on class citizenship.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether two-thirds of class are CA citizens (mandatory CAFA) | Over 68% of CA residents are citizens; class likely meets threshold | Plaintiff's evidence is speculative and does not tie to class | Plaintiff failed to meet burden; evidence insufficient |
| Whether one-third of class are CA citizens (discretionary) | Class definition and California focus suggest threshold is satisfied | Still no sufficient evidence of class composition | Plaintiff failed to meet burden; evidence insufficient |
| Need for jurisdictional discovery | Plaintiff should be allowed to conduct discovery if burden not met | Not directly opposed | Court allows limited discovery before renewed motion |
| Sufficiency of evidence based on voting/tax data | Uses CA voter eligibility and tax residency as proxy for citizenship | Data is not directly relevant to class citizenship | Court finds evidence too speculative |
Key Cases Cited
- Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013) (outlines when a federal issue supports jurisdiction)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005) (removal of entire case based on one claim with federal jurisdiction)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (presumption against removal jurisdiction)
- Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2009) (burden of proof for removal is on defendant)
- Brinkley v. Monterey Fin. Servs., Inc., 873 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2017) (plaintiff must provide facts on class citizenship for CAFA exceptions)
- King v. Great Am. Chicken Corp, Inc., 903 F.3d 875 (9th Cir. 2018) (last-known address not sufficient absent more evidence to support CAFA home state exception)
- Mondragon v. Capital One Auto Fin., 736 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2013) (burden on plaintiff to show citizenship for CAFA exception)
- Adams v. W. Marine Prods., Inc., 958 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir. 2020) (detailed member address information can satisfy CAFA home state exception)