Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06354/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06354-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cingular Wireless
Defendant
Dylan Paton
Plaintiff
Jamielynn Storie
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DYLAN PATON AND JAMIELYNN 

STORIE,

Plaintiffs, No. C 06-6354PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION TO REMAND

CINGULAR WIRELESS,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Plaintiff’s motion to remand the complaint came on for hearing before this court on

January 17, 2007. Defendant, Cingular Wireless (“defendant”), appeared through its

counsel, Michael Stortz. Plaintiffs’ counsel did not, however, appear and the court elected

to decide the matter on the papers. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully

considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the

court hereby GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion to remand the complaint, for the reasons

summarized below.

Defendant has based its removal of the action on the Class Action Fairness Act of

2005 ("CAFA"). CAFA is not retroactive and therefore applies only to actions which are

“commenced on or after the date of enactment” of the statute, which was February 18,

2005. Bush v. Cheaptickets, Inc., 425 F.3d 683, 684 (9th Cir. 2005). The court finds that

the Second and Third Amended Complaints filed in September 2006, on which defendant

has based its removal of the action, both relate back to the original complaint filed in 2004

as they all share a common core of operative facts so that defendant had fair notice of the

transaction, occurrence or conduct called into question. Martell v. Trilogy, Ltd., 872 F.2d

322, 325 (9th Cir. 1989). See 6A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane,

Case 4:06-cv-06354-PJH Document 20 Filed 01/25/07 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

Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1497, at 94-99 (2d ed. 1990); See also Carpanelli v.

American Standard Companies Inc., 2006 WL 568307 N.D.Cal.,2006. Accordingly, CAFA

does not provide a basis for federal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ motion to remand the complaint

is GRANTED. This case is hereby remanded to the Superior Court for the City and County

of San Francisco.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-06354-PJH Document 20 Filed 01/25/07 Page 2 of 2