Facts
- Ryan Lukman filed a class action against Safe Haven Security Services, LLC under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) [lines="22-23"].
- Jurisdiction is asserted based on the amount in controversy exceeding $5,000,000 and minimal diversity requirements [lines="22-24"].
- The court reviewed the Notice of Removal (NOR) and questioned whether the aggregate claims of the individual class members surpassed $5,000,000 [lines="35-36"].
- The defendant is ordered to show cause why the action should not be remanded due to this concern [lines="42-46"].
- Response deadlines were set for the defendant and the plaintiffs regarding the remand issue [lines="50-51"].
Issues
- Whether the claims of individual class members in Lukman's action exceed $5,000,000 in total, as required for CAFA jurisdiction [lines="36-37"].
- Whether the court has sufficient evidence to support the defendant's assertion of jurisdiction under CAFA in light of the plaintiff's contest [lines="39-41"].
Holdings
- The court requires the defendant to demonstrate that the total claims exceed the jurisdictional threshold for CAFA [lines="42-46"].
- Failure to respond to the order will result in consent to remand the action to state court [lines="48-49"].
OPINION
Case Information
*1 Case 5:24-cv-00770-FMO-SP Document 29 Filed 11/18/24 Page 1 of 2 Page ID
#:186 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. ED CV 24-0770 FMO (SPx) Date November 18, 2024 Title Ryan Lukman v. Safe Haven Security Services, LLC Present: The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge Vanessa Figueroa None
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorney Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney Present for Defendant(s):
None Present None Present Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Remand
Jurisdiction in this case is asserted on the basis of the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). (See Dkt. 1, Notice of Removal (“NOR”) at ¶ 1). “CAFA provides expanded original diversity jurisdiction for class actions meeting the amount in controversy and minimal diversity and numerosity requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).” United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg., Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv. Workers Int’l Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. Shell Oil Co., 602 F.3d 1087, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2010). Under that provision, “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is a class action in which . . . any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).
Having reviewed the NOR, the court questions whether the claims of the individual class members exceed $5,000,000 in the aggregate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2); Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S.Ct. 547, 554 (2014) (“Evidence establishing the amount is required . . . when the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the defendant’s allegation.”). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. No later than November 26, 2024, defendant shall show cause in writing why this action should not be remanded for the reasons noted above. Failure to respond to the OSC by the deadline set forth above shall be deemed as consent to the remand of the action to state court.
2. Plaintiffs shall file a reply to defendant’s OSC response no later than December 3, 2024. 3. A copy of all papers filed with the court shall be delivered to the drop box for Judge Olguin outside the Clerk’s Office, located on the fourth floor of the First Street Courthouse, no later than 12:00 noon the following business day . All chambers copies shall comply fully with the document formatting requirements of Local Rule 11-3, including the “backing” requirements CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2 *2 Case 5:24-cv-00770-FMO-SP Document 29 Filed 11/18/24 Page 2 of 2 Page ID
#:187 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. ED CV 24-0770 FMO (SPx) Date November 18, 2024 Title Ryan Lukman v. Safe Haven Security Services, LLC of Local Rule 11-3.5. Counsel may be subject to sanctions for failure to deliver a mandatory chambers copy in full compliance with this Order and Local Rule 11-3.
00 : 00 Initials of Preparer vdr CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 2