Rey v. Bristol Hospice, LLC
- James Donato
- 3:24-cv-04039
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Rey v. Bristol Hospice, Judge Donato remanded the class action to California state court because the local controversy exception applied.
The ruling affects Dianna Rey, the proposed classes, Bristol Hospice, LLC, the other defendants, and the forum where the case will proceed. The case was sent to the California Superior Court for the County of Alameda.
What happened
In Rey v. Bristol Hospice, Dianna Rey renewed her request to move the case from federal court to California state court under the local controversy exception to the Class Action Fairness Act. The court had previously denied the request without prejudice and allowed Rey to amend the complaint with more information about Optimal Health Services.
The amended complaint alleged that Optimal Health’s conduct was a significant part of the claims and that more than two-thirds of the proposed class members were California citizens. The defendants argued that an earlier class action, Olmos, involved similar claims and barred the exception. The court rejected that argument because the earlier case’s class claims were dismissed at the beginning of the litigation and the plaintiff’s individual claims were sent to arbitration.
Judge Donato remanded the case to the California Superior Court for the County of Alameda. The court ordered each side to pay its own attorney’s fees and costs.
The detailed version
- Rey v. Bristol Hospice, LLC · No. 3:24-cv-04039
- James Donato
- May 28, 2025
Background
Dianna Rey and other plaintiffs brought this proposed class action against Bristol Hospice, LLC, and other defendants. Rey asked the federal court to remand, or send, the case to California state court under the local controversy exception to jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), concerning defendant Optimal Health Services.
The court had previously denied Rey’s remand request without prejudice because the complaint had been drafted for state court and did not provide enough information to evaluate CAFA-specific issues. The court allowed Rey to file an amended complaint and renew the remand request. The amended complaint added factual allegations about Optimal Health.
Analysis
The court concluded that the amended complaint plausibly alleged two requirements of the local controversy exception: Optimal Health’s conduct formed a significant basis of the claims and relief sought, and more than two-thirds of the proposed class members, considered together, were citizens of California. These requirements appear in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(I) and (II)(bb).
The defendants argued that remand was barred because an earlier class action, Olmos v. Bristol Hospice - Inland Valley, LLC et al., had asserted similar facts and claims within the three years before this case was filed. The relevant statute permits remand only if no other class action asserting the same or similar factual allegations against any defendant on behalf of the same or other people was filed during that period.
The court found that Olmos did not satisfy this statutory bar. In Olmos, the plaintiff’s individual claims were sent to binding arbitration, the class claims were dismissed entirely, and the case was stayed pending arbitration. The court noted that the class allegations were dismissed at the very start of the litigation. It concluded that Olmos was not an “other class action” within the meaning of the statute because it did not develop into a separate class action proceeding.
Ruling
Judge Donato remanded the case to the California Superior Court for the County of Alameda. The court ordered that each side bear its own attorney’s fees and costs.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.