ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED

MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge.

Before the Court is defendant Capital Contractors, Inc.'s ("Capital") Notice of Removal, filed June 6, 2014, by which it has removed from state court a complaint filed by plaintiffs Lilliana Sanchez, Yolanda Camey, Juan Carlos Ramirez, Jose Antonio Hernandez, Juan Carlos Hernandez, Jose Alfaro, Irma Gonzalez Aguilar, and Lucinda Calindo. Having read and considered the Notice of Removal,1 the Court, for the reasons discussed below, will direct Capital to show cause why the above-titled action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

In their complaint, plaintiffs allege eleven causes of action under the Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"), along with two other causes of action, specifically, a claim for negligent misrepresentation and a claim under § 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code. In its Notice of Removal, Capital asserts the district court has jurisdiction over plaintiffs' complaint under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").

Under CAFA, a district court has jurisdiction over a class action in which (1) the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $5,000,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), (2) any member of the class is a citizen of a state different from any defendant, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A), and (3) the class consists of at least one hundred persons, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5)(B). Here, Capital has sufficiently demonstrated that the parties are diverse (see Notice of Removal ¶¶ 13-21), and plaintiffs bring the instant action on behalf of a class that, plaintiffs allege, consists of more than one hundred persons (see Compl. ¶¶ 22, 60). Accordingly, the remaining issue, for purposes of determining whether the Court has jurisdiction under CAFA, is whether the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $5,000,000.

In that regard, Capital has endeavored to calculate the amount in controversy as to certain of the PAGA claims, and, as to those claims, contends the amount in controversy totals at least $8,518,200. (See Notice of Removal ¶ 61.) Capital concedes it has not "assess[ed] the amount in controversy" with respect to plaintiffs' remaining claims, including plaintiffs' claims for negligent representation and violation of § 17200. (See id.) In other words, Capital seeks to show the requisite amount in controversy solely by reference to plaintiffs' PAGA claims.

The Ninth Circuit has held that "PAGA actions are . . . not sufficiently similar to Rule 23 class actions to trigger CAFA jurisdiction." See Baumann v. Chase Investment Services Corp., 747 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2014). As the Ninth Circuit has explained, district courts thus lack "original jurisdiction" over PAGA claims, see id. at 1124, and, where a defendant removes a PAGA claim pursuant to CAFA, it must be remanded even where the amount in controversy raised thereby exceeds the sum of $5,000,000, see id. at 1120, 1124. Consequently, even assuming Capital has shown the amount in controversy raised by plaintiffs' PAGA claims exceeds the sum of $5,000,000, such showing is, as a matter of law, insufficient to support the instant removal. See id. Put another way, the removal was proper, only if the amount in controversy raised by plaintiffs' non-PAGA claims exceeds the sum of $5,000,000.

As noted above, however, Capital has not argued, let alone shown by a preponderance of evidence, that the amount in controversy raised by the non-PAGA claims exceeds the sum of $5,000,000. See Watkins v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 720 F.3d 1180, 1181 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding defendant removing action under CAFA has "burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that the amount in controversy . . . exceeds $5 million").

Accordingly, Capital is hereby DIRECTED to show cause, in writing and no later than July 25, 2014, why the above-titled action should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs shall file any response thereto no later than August 1, 2014, on which date the Court will take the matter under submission.

IT IS SO ORDERED.