Rey v. Bristol Hospice, LLC

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

13 This action was removed to this Court on defendants’ allegation of jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) (CAFA). Dkt. No. 1 at 4. Plaintiffs have asked to remand the case to state court on the basis of the local controversy exception to CAFA jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 14; 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A). This exception is a “form of abstention,” Adams v. West Marine Products, Inc., 958 F.3d 1216, 1223 (9th Cir. 2020), that is narrowly construed to require the Court to decline to exercise jurisdiction when it applies, Benko 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 demonstrated that the conduct of defendant Optimal Health Services, which defendants acknowledge is “a local defendant,” Dkt. No. 16 at 13, forms a significant basis of plaintiffs’ claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(II)(bb). To answer that question, the Court may “look only to the complaint” and the allegations it contains. Allen v. Boeing Co., 821 F.3d 1111, 1117 (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 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 || complaint to provide the Court “with the information required to determine whether a suit is || 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 || the “significant basis” element of the local controversy exception, and any other CAFA-related elements they would like to clarify; and (2) a renewed motion to remand based on the amended complaint. A failure to meet this deadline will result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 Dated: March 13, 2025 JAMES ATO 13 United Ptates District Judge

= 17 Z 18