Venning v. Primark US Corp.

Background

Travis Venning filed a proposed class action against Primark US Corp. The complaint invoked the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), which provides federal jurisdiction over certain class actions when statutory requirements are met. Venning alleged that Primark paid him every two weeks rather than every week. He claimed that the delay denied him the time value of money because he could not invest, save, or make purchases with wages he had earned but received later.

Jurisdictional concerns

The court identified several possible defects in the complaint’s basis for federal jurisdiction.

First, CAFA requires minimal diversity, meaning that at least one class member must be a citizen of a different state from the defendant, among other possible arrangements. Venning alleged only that he was a New York resident. The court explained that residence does not establish citizenship. The court also stated that Primark was a citizen of Delaware and New York, and that the complaint did not establish that Venning or any member of the proposed New York class was a citizen of a different state.

Second, CAFA requires the amount in controversy to exceed $5 million, excluding interest and costs. The court found that Venning alleged this amount only in a conclusory statement and provided no supporting facts. The court also observed that, given the nature of the claims concerning the timing of pay, it appeared unlikely on the allegations then before it that the amount in controversy would exceed $5 million.

Third, the court questioned whether Venning alleged an injury sufficient to establish standing under Article III of the Constitution. The court noted that a statutory violation alone is not enough without a tangible injury or a close equivalent to a traditional legal injury. Although wage-and-hour plaintiffs may establish a sufficient injury by connecting a statutory violation to underpayment, the court found Venning’s claimed harm from the one-week payment delay appeared purely hypothetical because he did not show how the delay resulted in his being underpaid.

Order

The court ordered Venning to show cause, meaning to provide a written explanation, by December 4, 2023, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Primark could respond by December 11, 2023. The court stated that if Venning did not respond or failed to show sufficient cause, it would dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without further notice. The court also directed Venning to serve Primark with the order and file proof of service within two business days. The opinion did not itself dismiss the case.