Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03649/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03649-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CLRB Hanson Industries, LLC d/b/a Industrial

Printing, and Howard Stern, on behalf of

themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

Google Inc.,

Defendant. /

NO. C 05-03649 JW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE

CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED

FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

On September 12, 2005, Defendant Google, Inc. (“Defendant”) removed this action pursuant

to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) (“CAFA”). Under CAFA, a district

court has “‘original jurisdiction of any civil action in which the matter in controversy exceeds the

sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and [the action] is a class action in

which’ the parties satisfy, among other requirements, minimal diversity.” Abrego Abrego v. The

Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)). CAFA

expressly provides that the claims of individual members shall be aggregated to determine the

amount in controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(6). Plaintiffs have not challenged removal and concede

in their Second Amended Class Action Complaint that the Court has jurisdiction under CAFA. (See

Docket Item No. 47.)

Having reviewed the papers and evidence submitted in conjunction with the parties’ motions

for summary judgment, the Court is doubtful as to whether the amount of damages sought by

Case 5:05-cv-03649-JW Document 101 Filed 10/30/06 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

Plaintiffs exceeds the jurisdictional threshold of $5,000,000. Of particular concern to the Court are

the relatively small amounts by which each of the named Plaintiffs alleges to have been overcharged

by Defendant. For example, named Plaintiff Howard Stern testifies by declaration that in certain

months he was only overcharged by a couple of dollars:

[M]y AdWords campaign ran for 4 days in the month of September 2005. During

that time my daily budget was set at $10. Google should have charged me at

most, $40. In fact, it charged me over 8% more ($43.25). In December 2005 my

AdWords campaign ran for 2 days and my daily budget was $10. I should have

been charged $20 by Google. In fact, it charged me over 6% more ($21.28).

(Declaration of Howard Stern in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,

Docket Item No. 83, ¶ 6.) If such claims are typical of other class members, even with a class

comprised of thousands, the amount in controversy requirement is not satisfied.

Accordingly, the Court orders the parties to show cause why the case should not be

remanded for lack of jurisdiction. A hearing on this matter is set for November 20, 2006 at 9:00

a.m. The parties shall submit opening briefs no later than November 8, 2006. Any reply briefs shall

be filed no later than November 13, 2006. The hearing on the parties’ motions for summary

judgment is continued to January 22, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. Additionally, the case management

conference currently scheduled for November 6, 2006 is continued to January 22, 2007 at 10:00

a.m.

Dated: October 30, 2006 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-03649-JW Document 101 Filed 10/30/06 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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Christopher M. Jhang cjhang@perkinscoie.com

David T. Biderman dbiderman@perkinscoie.com

Judith B. Gitterman gittj@perkinscoie.com

Lester L Levy llevy@wolfpopper.com

Lisa Delehunt ldelehunt@perkinscoie.com

Michele Fried Raphael mraphael@wolfpopper.com

Ryan M. Hagan rhagan@alexanderlaw.com

William M. Audet waudet@alexanderlaw.com

Dated: October 30, 2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:05-cv-03649-JW Document 101 Filed 10/30/06 Page 3 of 3