1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SOUTHERN DIVISION 10 ROBERT BARGAR, individually and ) Case No.: SACV 23-00198-CJC (JDEx) 11 ) on behalf of all others similarly situated, ) 12 ) ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 Plaintiff, ) THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE ) DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT 14 v. ) MATTER JURISDICTION ) 15 ) SYNAPSE GROUP, INC. d/b/a ) 16 MAGSFORMILES and ) MAGSFORPOINTS, ) 17 ) ) 18 ) Defendant. ) 19 ) 20 In this putative class action, Plaintiff R obert Bargar alleges that Defendant Synapse 21 Group, Inc., doing business as MagsforMiles and MagsforPoints, employs “a classic bait 22 and switch marketing ploy” by offering frequ ent flyer members of certain airlines “to 23 redeem their unused, orphan, or expiring mile s for” certain print magazines and then 24 “forc[ing them] to choose a digital publicatio n for magazines other than [their] chosen 25 publication rather than refunding [them] the M iles or providing other compensation.” 26 (Dkt. 1 [Complaint, hereinafter “Compl.”] ¶¶ 1–6 [emphases in original].) Plaintiff 27 asserts only state law claims, but alleges that the Court has jurisdiction over this case 1 |}under the Class Action Fairness Act, which provides federal district courts “with ‘origina 2 ||jurisdiction’ to hear a ‘class action’ if the class has more than 100 members, the parties 3 minimally diverse, and the ‘matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of 4 |1$5,000,000.’” Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles,

(2013). 5 6 Plaintiff alleges that the amount in controversy in this case exceeds $5 million. 7 |}(Compl. § 10.) But “[t]his threadbare recitation of the amount in controversy element for 8 subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA is insufficient, without more, to establish the 9 ||Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.” Petkevicius v. NBTY, Inc.,

, at *4 10 ||(S.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2017). And the Court has doubts whether $5 million is actually in 11 || controversy here. Plaintiff's theory is that Defendant duped him into trading his airline 12 || miles, which were nearly worthless because they were “unused, orphan, or expiring,” for 13 |] one thing and then forcing him to trade them for another thing. (See Compl. 4] 1-7.) 14 || The value of any actual damages or restitution for any class member is likely to be 15 ||extraordinarily small. (See id.) Accordingly, the Court needs more information both 16 || about the number of class members and the amount each class member could possibly 17 recover to be assured that the Court has CAFA jurisdiction over this case. 18 19 The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing by July 17, 2023 why this 20 |} case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Defendant may, but is not required 21 || to, file a statement by July 24, 2023. The hearing on Defendant’s motion to transfer 22 || venue set for July 10, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. is VACATED and off calendar. The Court will 23 ||reschedule the hearing on this motion if it determines it has jurisdiction over this case. 24 25 DATED: — June 29, 2023 Ko fr 26 f——_f (a7 27 CORMAC J. CARNEY 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE