RESOVSKY v. CORDIS CORPORATION, 16-cv-03082-EMC. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20160719713
Visitors: 14
Filed: Jul. 18, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 18, 2016
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . Defendant Coris Corporation removed the instant case on June 6, 2016, asserting that the Court has jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) of 2005. See Docket No. 1 (Not. of Removal) at 18. Coris Corporation's removal was based on a motion for consolidation filed in Superior Court Case No. RG16814166 (the " Quinn " action), which sought to consolidate eight actions for pre-trial purposes and the institution of a bellw
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . Defendant Coris Corporation removed the instant case on June 6, 2016, asserting that the Court has jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) of 2005. See Docket No. 1 (Not. of Removal) at 18. Coris Corporation's removal was based on a motion for consolidation filed in Superior Court Case No. RG16814166 (the " Quinn " action), which sought to consolidate eight actions for pre-trial purposes and the institution of a bellwe..
More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.
Defendant Coris Corporation removed the instant case on June 6, 2016, asserting that the Court has jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) of 2005. See Docket No. 1 (Not. of Removal) at ¶ 18. Coris Corporation's removal was based on a motion for consolidation filed in Superior Court Case No. RG16814166 (the "Quinn" action), which sought to consolidate eight actions for pre-trial purposes and the institution of a bellwether-trial process. Id. at ¶ 12. It is unclear that this Court has jurisdiction, as based on the record it does not appear that the cases were consolidated, see Docket No. 18 (Mayer Dec.), Exh. A, and it currently seems that only the instant action is before this Court, with only seven plaintiffs named in the First Amended Complaint. Docket No. 16-1.1 The parties are to file briefing explaining why the Court has jurisdiction over this case by Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 12:00 p.m. PST.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The original complaint filed in state court named four plaintiffs.
Source: Leagle
