Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05956/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05956-6/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

 The Court grants Alvarez’s request for judicial notice. See Fed. R. Evid. 201. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUALXSERV, INC.,

Petitioner,

 v.

PAMELA F. ALVAREZ,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-05956 JSW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS

Now before the Court is the motion to dismiss filed by respondent Pamela F. Alvarez

(“Alvarez”). Having carefully reviewed the parties’ papers and the relevant legal authority, the

Court hereby GRANTS the motion.

BACKGROUND

In 2004, Alvarez filed a class action in the Superior Court for the County of Mendocino

against petitioner Qualxserv, Inc. (“Qualxserv”), Dell Inc., Dell Catalog Sales, L.P., and Dell

Products, L.P. (collectively, “Dell”), and Bantec, Inc. (Alvarez’s Request for Judicial Notice

(“RJN”), Ex. A.)1

 Alvarez’s state court complaint is a consumer action based on Dell,

Qualxserv, and Bantec’s alleged deceptive warranty practices. The alleged practices include

selling consumers computers with “next business day onsite repair and parts” warranties but

failing to provide such services. (Id., Ex. A.) In September 2004, Dell, Qualxserv, and Bantec

moved to compel arbitration in the underlying state court class action, which the state court

granted. (Id., Exs. C, D.) Alvarez sought and was granted leave to file an amended class action

complaint in the state court action. (Id., Ex. E.) In September 2006, Alvarez filed an amended

Case 3:06-cv-05956-JSW Document 45 Filed 02/23/07 Page 1 of 3
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

complaint, adding California statutory claims based on the same set of facts. (Id., Ex. F.) Dell,

Qualxserv, and Bantec then filed separate petitions in this Court to compel arbitration of the

claims asserted in Alvarez’s state court class action. Alvarez now moves to dismiss the petition

filed by Qualxserv, inter alia, for lack of jurisdiction.

ANALYSIS

Federal courts have limited jurisdiction. Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger,

437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). Federal courts can only adjudicate cases which the Constitution or

Congress authorize them to adjudicate: those cases involving diversity of citizenship, or a

federal question, or those cases to which the United States is a party. See, e.g., Kokkonen v.

Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994). This Court has original subject

matter jurisdiction in diversity cases where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of

$75,000 and is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Federal courts are

presumptively without jurisdiction over civil cases and the burden of establishing the contrary

rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. 

Qualxserv contends this Court has jurisdiction based on diversity pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332. Alvarez does not dispute there is complete diversity between the parties, but rather,

argues that the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. In support of its position that

the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount, Qualxserv solely relies on the cost

Dell would incur if it were required to comply with the injunction sought by Alvarez in a

separate, related action.

Qualxserv’s reliance on the cost Dell would incur to satisfy the jurisdictional amount

fails for two independent reasons. First, Qualxserv and Dell initiated separate actions to compel

arbitration. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (“section 1367”) provides for supplemental jurisdiction over

claims that are related to other claims in an action when a district court has original jurisdiction

over the action. The language of section 1367 “requires that the supplemental jurisdiction be

exercised in the same case, not a separate or subsequent case.” Ortolf v. Silver Bar Mines, Inc.,

111 F.3d 85, 86 (9th Cir. 1997) (emphasis added). Without any basis for original jurisdiction in

this action, the action must be dismissed.

Case 3:06-cv-05956-JSW Document 45 Filed 02/23/07 Page 2 of 3
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 Because the Court finds that Qualxserv has failed to demonstrate that the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000, the Court need not address Alvarez’s additional asserted bases

for dismissal.

3

 Because the Court has ordered that the case be dismissed, Qualxserv’s motion to

compel arbitration is moot and need not be addressed. 

3

Second, even if the Court could consider the jurisdictional amount in the petition filed

by Dell to provide jurisdiction in this matter, the Court has found that Dell failed to demonstrate

the amount in controversy requirement had been satisfied.2

 Accordingly, Alvarez’s motion to

dismiss is granted.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Alvarez’s motion to dismiss this action

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 23, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05956-JSW Document 45 Filed 02/23/07 Page 3 of 3