Cedeno v. Bluemercury, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-01186
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Cedeno v. Bluemercury, Judge Furman ordered Cedeno to explain why the class action should not be dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction.
Madeleine Cedeno, the proposed class, and Bluemercury, Inc.; the case could be dismissed if Cedeno does not address the jurisdictional concerns.
What happened
In Cedeno v. Bluemercury, Inc., Madeleine Cedeno brought a proposed class action invoking the Class Action Fairness Act, a federal law that can provide jurisdiction over certain class actions. Her claims concern the timing of her pay, alleging that Bluemercury paid her every two weeks instead of every week.
The court identified two possible jurisdictional problems. First, Cedeno alleged only generally that the proposed class’s claims exceeded $5 million, which the court said was not enough to show the required amount in controversy. Second, the court questioned whether the alleged one-week payment delay caused a real enough injury for federal standing, noting that Cedeno had not shown that the delay resulted in her being underpaid.
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered Cedeno to explain in writing by March 1, 2024, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Bluemercury may respond by March 8, 2024. The court did not dismiss the case in this order, but stated that it would do so without further notice if Cedeno failed to respond or failed to show cause.
The detailed version
- Cedeno v. Bluemercury, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-01186
- Jesse Furman
- Feb. 21, 2024
Background
Madeleine Cedeno filed a complaint individually and on behalf of a proposed class. She invoked federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). The opinion states that her claims concern Bluemercury’s payment of wages on a biweekly rather than weekly basis. Cedeno alleged that she lost the “time-value” of money because she could not invest, earn interest on, or otherwise use the money during the one-week delay.
Potential jurisdictional defects
The court conducted a preliminary review and identified potentially fatal defects in federal jurisdiction. Under CAFA, the amount in controversy must exceed $5 million, excluding interest and costs. The court held that Cedeno’s conclusory allegation that the proposed class’s claims were “well in excess of $5,000,000” did not meet even the minimum burden of showing a reasonable probability that the jurisdictional amount was satisfied. The court also stated that, given the nature of the claims, it seemed unlikely that the amount in controversy would exceed $5 million. Based on the complaint’s allegations, the court was unable to exercise jurisdiction under CAFA.
The court also questioned whether the complaint alleged an injury-in-fact sufficient for Article III standing. It explained that a statutory violation alone is not enough unless it causes a tangible injury or closely resembles an injury recognized under traditional legal claims. Although wage-and-hour plaintiffs may establish a tangible injury by plausibly connecting a statutory violation to underpaid wages, the court found Cedeno’s claimed harm appeared purely hypothetical because she had not shown how the one-week delay resulted in her being underpaid.
Order
The court ordered Cedeno to show cause in writing by March 1, 2024, meaning she had to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Bluemercury may file a response by March 8, 2024. The court stated that it would dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without further notice if Cedeno failed to show cause or failed to file anything by the deadline. The court also directed Cedeno to serve Bluemercury with a copy of the order and file proof of service within two business days. This order itself did not dismiss the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.