Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02878/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02878-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE ABRAMS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

METROPCS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et

al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 13-02878 JSW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

REGARDING JURISDICTION

The Court has an independent obligation to determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear

this matter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or

otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the

action.”); see also FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990) (stating that the

district court has an independent obligation to determine subject matter jurisdiction). If the

Court determines that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the Court must dismiss the case. 

Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 

In his first amended complaint (“FAC”), plaintiff George Abrams (“Plaintiff”) alleges

subject matter jurisdiction exists based on the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C.

section 1331(d)(2), and based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a). 

(FAC, ¶¶ 3, 4.) However, based on Plaintiff’s allegations, it is not clear that the requisite

amount in controversy is satisfied. Due to the fact that Plaintiff alleges defendants Metropcs

Communications, Inc., Metropcs Wireless, Inc., and T-Mobile US, Inc. (collectively, 

Case 3:13-cv-02878-JSW Document 26 Filed 01/06/14 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

“Defendants”) failed to provide him with three days of service, it is unlikely that the amount in

controversy is equal to or exceeds $75,000 for his individual claims. Moreover, any members

of a purported class would be limited to those customers who opted out of the arbitration

agreement and paid their bill late, but no more that thirty days late. The Court, thus, has

concerns that the amount in controversy for the purported class would be equal to or exceed

$5,000,000. However, the Court notes that Defendants are the ones that have the information

on potential class members. Therefore, the Court HEREBY ORDERS Plaintiff to Show Cause 

in writing by no later than March 14, 2014, that subject matter jurisdiction exists. Plaintiff shall

conduct discovery to determine the number of individuals who may be members of the

purported class. The Court FURTHER ORDERS that the hearing on Defendants’ motion to

dismiss is CONTINUED to March 28, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. and that the case management

conference is CONTINUED to April 25, 2014 at 11:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2014 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:13-cv-02878-JSW Document 26 Filed 01/06/14 Page 2 of 2