Swartz v. Daves Killer Bread, Inc.
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-10053
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Swartz v. Daves Killer Bread, Inc., Judge Rogers ordered Swartz to explain why the class action should not be dismissed for lacking federal jurisdiction.
David Swartz and the proposed class action against Dave’s Killed Bread, Inc. and Flowers Foods, Inc.; the order required Swartz to establish federal jurisdiction or face dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
What happened
Swartz sued Dave’s Killed Bread, Inc. and Flowers Foods, Inc. in a proposed class action. He alleged that he was a California resident and that the defendants were corporations from Oregon and Georgia.
The court said that the Class Action Fairness Act requires at least 100 class members, minimal differences in citizenship, and more than $5 million in dispute. It found that saying Swartz was a California resident did not establish his state citizenship, so the complaint did not adequately show that federal jurisdiction existed.
Judge Rogers ordered Swartz to explain in writing by May 17, 2022, why jurisdiction was proper and why the amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied. The response could not exceed six pages, and the court stated that failing to respond on time would result in dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Swartz v. Daves Killer Bread, Inc. · No. 4:21-cv-10053
- Yvonne Rogers
- May 9, 2022
Background
David Swartz filed a proposed class action against Dave’s Killed Bread, Inc. and Flowers Foods, Inc. The court issued an order to show cause, meaning an order requiring a party to explain why the court should not take a specified action. Here, the court required Swartz to explain why his claims should not be dismissed for failure to establish jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).
Jurisdictional requirements
The court explained that CAFA gives federal courts original jurisdiction over qualifying class actions when there are at least 100 class members, at least one class member is a citizen of a state different from any defendant, and the total amount in dispute exceeds $5 million, excluding interest and costs. The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing it.
CAFA requires only “minimal diversity,” not complete diversity. But the plaintiff must still affirmatively allege the relevant parties’ citizenship. For a natural person, citizenship depends on domicile rather than residence. The court noted that an allegation that a person lives at an address in a state does not by itself establish citizenship in that state.
Court’s action
Swartz’s complaint alleged that he was “an individual and a resident of Oakland, California,” while alleging that the defendants were Oregon and Georgia corporations. The court found that the residence allegation, without more, was insufficient to establish Swartz’s citizenship. As a result, the court could not determine whether minimal diversity existed or whether CAFA jurisdiction was proper. The court also required Swartz to address whether the amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied.
The court ordered Swartz to file a written response by May 17, 2022, explaining why jurisdiction was proper and why the amount-in-controversy requirement was met. The response could not exceed six pages. The order stated that failure to file a timely response would result in dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. The opinion itself does not state that the case was dismissed at that time.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.