Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03076/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03076-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY DUNSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CORDIS CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-03076-SI 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CAFA 

JURISDICTION

Defendant Cordis Corporation (“Cordis”), which is headquartered in California, removed 

this action to federal court on June 6, 2016 and promptly filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ first 

amended complaint (“FAC”), which the Court granted in part. See Dkt. No. 1 (Notice of 

Removal); Dkt. No. 7 (Motion); Dkt. No. 19 (Amended Motion); Dkt. No. 20 (Order). 

Defendants are now ordered to show cause regarding why this case should not be dismissed for 

lack of jurisdiction. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) provides that “[i]f the court determines at any 

time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” See also 

Mansfield, C. & L.M.R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382 (1884) (concluding that challenge to a 

federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction may be made at any stage of the proceedings, and the 

court should raise the question sua sponte).

Defendants allege in their notice of removal that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the 

Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), or CAFA. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 18. “CAFA 

provides the federal district courts with original jurisdiction to hear a class action if the class has 

more than 100 members[.]” Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345, (2013) (internal 

quotation marks omitted) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5)(B)). By the Court’s count there are 

currently 8 plaintiffs in the present case. See Dkt. No. 1-1 (FAC).

It appears by defendant’s notice of removal that they seek to include, for the sake of 

Case 3:16-cv-03076-EMC Document 27 Filed 07/21/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

achieving the “100 member” numerosity requirement, all the plaintiffs in 9 separate cases 

currently pending before 9 different judges in this district:

Dunson, et al. v. Cordis Corp., et al., 3:16-cv-03076-SI (Illston, J.) (8 plaintiffs)

Quinn, et al. v. Cordis Corp., et al., 3:16-cv-03080-WHO (Orrick, J.) (12 plaintiffs)

Resovsky v. Cordis Corp., et al., 3:16-cv-03082-EMC (Chen, J.) (7 plaintiffs)

Grant, et al. v. Cordis Corp., et al., 3:16-cv-03083-HSG (Gilliam, J.) (20 plaintiffs)

Herbert, et al. v. Cordis Corp., et al., 3:16-cv-03085-JST (Tigar, J.) (12 plaintiffs)

Holden, et al. v. Cordis Corp., et al., 3:16-cv-03087-TEH (Henderson, J.) (21 

plaintiffs)

Oehring, et al. v. Cordis Corp., et al., 4:16-cv-03088-JSW (White, J.) (34 

plaintiffs)

Barber, et al. v. Cordis Corp., et al., 3:16-cv-03086-JD (Donato, J.) (27 plaintiffs)

Sutton, et al. v. Cordis Corp., et al., 3:16-cv-04012-VC (Chhabria, J.) (3 plaintiffs)

Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 1-11.

A motion to remand is pending in several of these cases. See Dkt. No. 16, 3:16-cv-03080-

WHO (Orrick, J.); Dkt. No. 15, 3:16-cv-03083-HSG (Gilliam, J.); Dkt. No. 14, 3:16-cv-03085-

JST (Tigar, J.); Dkt. No. 20, 4:16-cv-03088-JSW (White, J.); Dkt. No. 17, 3:16-cv-03086-JD 

(Donato, J.). Judge Chen recently issued an order to show cause re: jurisdiction in case number 

16-cv-03082, questioning defendant’s removal on the basis of CAFA jurisdiction given the 7 

plaintiffs in that case. See Dkt. No. 22, 3:16-cv-03082-EMC. 

None of the above cases are consolidated. Should any of the pending remand motions be 

granted some of the cases will be in state court while others remain in federal court. 

Defendants are ORDERED to show cause, in writing to be filed no later than July 28,

2016, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July21, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-03076-EMC Document 27 Filed 07/21/16 Page 2 of 2