Ewart v. Fender Musical Instruments Corp.
- Susan Van Keulen
- 5:26-cv-05460
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Ewart v. Fender, Judge Lee ordered written responses on whether the Class Action Fairness Act provides subject-matter jurisdiction.
Karen Ewart, Bianca Johnston, the proposed class, and Fender Musical Instruments Corp.; the court’s jurisdiction over the proposed class action remains under review.
What happened
Karen Ewart, et al. v. Fender Musical Instruments Corp. is a proposed class action in which the plaintiffs rely on the Class Action Fairness Act, a federal law that can allow certain class actions in federal court. The complaint says the named plaintiffs are California citizens and Fender is incorporated in Delaware with its main business location in Los Angeles, California.
The court said the complaint does not identify any proposed class member who is a citizen of another state. It therefore appeared that the required difference in citizenship might be missing. The court also said that, even if that requirement were met, the Class Action Fairness Act’s home-state exceptions might require or allow the court to decline jurisdiction because the claims concern California consumers and California law.
Judge Eumi K. Lee ordered the parties to explain in writing why the court has authority to hear the case. Each side may file a response of no more than five pages by September 11, 2026. The order did not make a final decision on jurisdiction or the merits of the claims.
The detailed version
- Ewart v. Fender Musical Instruments Corp. · No. 5:26-cv-05460
- Susan Van Keulen
- Aug. 28, 2026
Background
Plaintiffs filed a proposed class action against Fender Musical Instruments Corp. The complaint alleges that the court has jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). CAFA generally requires only “minimal diversity,” meaning that at least one class member must be a citizen of a different state from a defendant.
The complaint identifies Karen Ewart and Bianca Johnston as California citizens. It identifies Fender as a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California. The court noted that the complaint does not allege that any proposed class member is a citizen of another state. Based on the allegations before it, the court stated that minimal diversity appeared to be lacking.
Potential CAFA Exceptions
The court also stated that, even if minimal diversity were adequately alleged, it appeared likely that the court would have to or could decline jurisdiction under CAFA’s mandatory or discretionary home-state exceptions. Those exceptions concern cases in which a large portion of the proposed class and the primary defendants are citizens of the state where the action was filed. The court pointed to allegations that Fender targets California consumers and that all claims arise under California law.
Order
The court ordered the parties to show cause—in other words, to explain in writing—why the court has subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case. Plaintiffs and Fender may each submit a response of no more than five pages by September 11, 2026.
This order does not finally decide whether jurisdiction exists, and it does not address the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. Judge Eumi K. Lee issued the order on August 28, 2026.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.