Burton v. Peak Campus California, Inc., 19-cv-08341-VC. (2020)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20200304954
Visitors: 22
Filed: Mar. 02, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS HEARING VINCE CHHABRIA , District Judge . It appears that the complaint may fail to allege facts sufficient to create Article III standing in this case, necessitating a remand to state court. See Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488 , 499 (2009) ("[T]he court has an independent obligation to assure that standing exists, regardless of whether it is challenged by any of the parties."); Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 878 F.3d 770 , 773-7
Summary: ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS HEARING VINCE CHHABRIA , District Judge . It appears that the complaint may fail to allege facts sufficient to create Article III standing in this case, necessitating a remand to state court. See Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488 , 499 (2009) ("[T]he court has an independent obligation to assure that standing exists, regardless of whether it is challenged by any of the parties."); Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 878 F.3d 770 , 773-74..
More
ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS HEARING
VINCE CHHABRIA, District Judge.
It appears that the complaint may fail to allege facts sufficient to create Article III standing in this case, necessitating a remand to state court. See Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 499 (2009) ("[T]he court has an independent obligation to assure that standing exists, regardless of whether it is challenged by any of the parties."); Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 878 F.3d 770, 773-74 (9th Cir. 2017) ("[T]he removal statute is strictly construed, and any doubt about the right of removal requires resolution in favor of remand."). At the hearing, the defendants should be prepared to explain the basis for Article III standing in this case, if they wish to avoid a remand. The plaintiffs should also be prepared to take a clear position on whether they have Article III standing.
Incidentally, even if remand is required, this is not a situation in which cost-shifting would be warranted, and the Court will not hear argument on that issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
