Rey v. Bristol Hospice, LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 13, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-04039
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DIANNA REY, et al., on behalf of Case No. 24-cv-04039-JD themselves and all others similarly situated, 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE REMAND 9 v. 10 BRISTOL HOSPICE, LLC, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 This action was removed to this Court on defendants’ allegation of jurisdiction under the 14 Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) (CAFA). Dkt. No. 1 at 4. Plaintiffs 15 have asked to remand the case to state court on the basis of the local controversy exception to 16 CAFA jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 14; 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A). This exception is a “form of 17 abstention,” Adams v. West Marine Products, Inc., 958 F.3d 1216, 1223 (9th Cir. 2020), that is 18 narrowly construed to require the Court to decline to exercise jurisdiction when it applies, Benko 19 v. Quality Loan Service Corp., 789 F.3d 1111, 1116 (9th Cir. 2015). 20 The parties dispute, among other factors relevant to the exception, whether plaintiffs have 21 demonstrated that the conduct of defendant Optimal Health Services, which defendants 22 acknowledge is “a local defendant,” Dkt. No. 16 at 13, forms a significant basis of plaintiffs’ 23 claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(II)(bb). To answer that question, the Court may “look 24 only to the complaint” and the allegations it contains. Allen v. Boeing Co., 821 F.3d 1111, 1117 25 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Coleman v. Estes Exp. Lines, Inc., 631 F.3d 1010, 1015 (9th Cir. 2011)). 26 As is often the situation when a case is removed, plaintiffs’ complaint did not necessarily 27 address “CAFA-specific issues, such as the local controversy exception.” Benko, 789 F.3d at 1 of the exception, Dkt. No. 14 at 7, but the proper course is for plaintiffs to file an amended 2 || complaint to provide the Court “with the information required to determine whether a suit is 3 || within the court’s jurisdiction under CAFA.” Benko, 789 F.3d at 1117. 4 Consequently, plaintiffs may file by April 25, 2025: (1) an amended complaint addressing 5 || the “significant basis” element of the local controversy exception, and any other CAFA-related 6 elements they would like to clarify; and (2) a renewed motion to remand based on the amended 7 complaint. A failure to meet this deadline will result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil 8 Procedure 41(b). 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: March 13, 2025 11 12 JAMES ATO 13 United Ptates District Judge

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28