1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 THOMAS SHRIVER, ET AL., Case No. 4:22-cv-03719-YGR

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

9 PARTNERSHIP HEALTHPLAN OF CALIFORNIA, 10 Defendant.

11 TO PLAINTIFFS AND PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL OF RECORD: 12 YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING why this case should 13 not be dismissed for plaintiffs’ failure to establish that jurisdiction is proper pursuant to the Class 14 Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”),

(d)(2). 15 Relevant here, “CAFA vests federal courts with original diversity jurisdiction over class 16 actions where (1) the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000; (2) any class member 17 is a citizen of a state different from any defendant; and (3) there are at least 100 class members.” 18 Brinkley v. Monterey Fin. Servs., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). 19 Nevertheless, “Congress provided exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction,” including the so-called 20 “local controversy exception” and the mandatory “home state exception[.]” Adams v. West 21 Marine Products, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2020). 22 With respect to the local controversy exception, courts “shall decline to exercise 23 jurisdiction” when, “greater than two-thirds of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the 24 aggregate are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed[,]”

1332(d)(4)(A), “the principal injuries occurred in that same state, and at least one significant 26 defendant is a citizen of that state.” Adams,

(citing

(d)(4)(A)). 27 As to the mandatory home state exception, district courts “shall decline to exercise jurisdiction” 1 the primary defendants, are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed.” 28 2 |} US.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B); Adams,

. 3 The complaint alleges that the named plaintiffs and defendant are citizens of California. It 4 || further defines the class as “[a]ll individuals residing in the United States whose PII was actually 5 or potentially compromised during the data event PHC identified on or about March 19, 2022.” 6 (Compl. § 118.) Approximately 854,913 were impacted by the alleged data breach in the 7 || complaint concerning the administration of Medi-Cal benefits. Ud. 2-3.) Given the citizenship 8 || of the named parties combined with the fact that Medi-Cal is a California health care program, the 9 Court is concerned the local controversy exception and/or the mandatory home state exception 10 || may be a jurisdictional bar to CAFA jurisdiction. 11 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. By no later than November 30, 2022, plaintiffs respond in writing explaining why this 5 13 case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Failure to respond to this order by 14 the deadline set forth above will be construed as a concession that dismissal is appropriate. 3 15 2. Defendant may file an optional response to plaintiffs’ response by December 5, 2022. 16 3. Alternatively, the parties may file a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal. 3 17 IT Is SO ORDERED. || Dated: November 14, 2022

() VONNE GON#@LEZ ROGERS □□ 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28