1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 ELIZABETH COPLEY, Case No. 4:21-cv-08941-YGR

7 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CAFA v. JURISDICTION 8

Dkt. No. 28 9 NATERA, INC., Defendant. 10

11 TO PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH COPLEY AND HER COUNSEL OF RECORD: 12 YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING no later than May 13 18, 2022, why plaintiff’s claims should not be dismissed for failing to establish that jurisdiction is 14 proper pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”),

(d)(2). 15 Pursuant to CAFA, this Court has original jurisdiction over class actions in which there are 16 at least 100 class members, at least one of which is diverse in citizenship from any defendant, and 17 for which the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $5 million, exclusive of interest 18 and costs.

(d)(2); Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc.,

(9th 19 Cir. 2015). The party asserting that jurisdiction is proper bears the burden of establishing federal 20 jurisdiction. Ibarra,

; Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co.,

(9th Cir. 21 2006). 22 The First Amended Complaint alleges that that this Court has subject matter pursuant to 23

without specifying which subsection applies. (Dkt. No. 28, at ¶ 11.) It further 24 alleges that “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $1 million, exclusive of interest 25 and costs.” (Id.) This Court understands plaintiff to be invoking CAFA, which has a $5 million 26 amount in controversy requirement. On this basis, plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that the 27 amount in controversy is satisfied. 1 May 18, 2022, why jurisdiction is proper and that the amount in controversy requirement is 2 satisfied. The response shall not exceed more than six (6) pages. Failure to file a timely response 3 will result in the case being dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 4 5 IT Is SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: May 4, 2022 Bee Conzbrz ove □ 8 NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

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