IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

ROSS REDDICK, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GLOBAL CONT ACT SOLUTIONS, LLC, 

Defendant. 

PAP AK, Magistrate Judge: 

3:15-CV-425-PK 

OPINION AND 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Ross Reddick filed this putative class action against defendant Global Contact 

Solutions, LLC ("GCS"), in the Multnomah County Circuit Court on behalf of himself and all 

others similarly situated on Januaiy 29, 2015. By and through his state-cou1t complaint, Reddick 

alleged GCS' liability under Oregon statuto1y law for failure to pay wages and for failure to pay 

all wages due and owing at the termination of employment, both such failures arising out of GCS' 

alleged practice of requiring all of its employees to attend mandat01y training at the beginning of 

Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-00425-PK Document 25 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 6
their employment, without compensation. GCS removed Reddick's action to this court effective 

March 13, 2015, on the purpo1ied basis of original federal jurisdiction under the Class Action 

Fairness Act of2005 ("CAFA"). Reddick moved for remand of this action to the Multnomah 

County Court on April 15, 2015, and oral argument was held in connection with Reddick's 

motion on May 26, 2015. 

Following oral argument in connection with Reddick's motion, on June 1, 2015, I issued 

an Opinion and Order and Order (#17) to Show Cause directing both Reddick and GCS to show 

cause within 45 days why Reddick's action should not be remanded to state cou1i for lack of 

federal subject-matter jurisdiction. By and through that order, I noted that, on the arguendo 

assumption that GCS had been or would be successful in establishing the four elements of 

federal subject-matter jurisdiction under CAFA - namely, that (1) the amount in controversy 

exceeds five million dollars exclusive of interest and costs, (2) any plaintiff class member is a 

citizen of a state different from any defendant, (3) the primmy defendants are not states, state 

officials, or other government entities against whom the district comi may be foreclosed from 

ordering relief, and ( 4) the number of plaintiffs in the class or classes at issue is at least 100, see 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2), (d)(5); see also Serrano v. 180 Connect, Inc., 478 F.3d 1018, 

1020-1021, 1021 n. 3, 1021 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted) - such evidence of record as 

was material to the question and such material data as was fit for judicial notice nevertheless 

suggested the empirical likelihood, but fell short of establishing, that this comi could be obliged 

to refrain from the exercise of jurisdiction under CAFA pursuant to one or both of two 

Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-00425-PK Document 25 Filed 07/21/15 Page 2 of 6
mandatory abstention rules codified at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(4)(A) and 1332(d)(4)(B) 1 (or, 

alternatively, that this comi could enjoy discretion to refrain from the exercise of CAF A 

jurisdiction pursuant to the discretionary abstention rule codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(3)2

). In 

1 The "local controversy" exception codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A) requires 

federal courts to decline to exercise CAF A jurisdiction over: 

(i) ... a[ ny] class action in which-

(I) greater than two-thirds of the members of all proposed plaintiff 

classes in the aggregate are citizens of the State in which the action 

was originally filed; 

(II) at least 1 defendant is a defendant-

( aa) from whom significant relief is sought by members of the 

plaintiff class; 

(bb) whose alleged conduct fonns a significant basis for the 

claims asserted by the proposed plaintiff class; and 

(cc) who is a citizen of the State in which the action was 

originally filed; and 

(III) principal injuries resulting from the alleged conduct or any related 

conduct of each defendant were incuned in the State in which the 

action was originally filed; and 

(ii) during the 3-year period preceding the filing of that class action, no other 

class action has been filed asserting the same or similar factual allegations 

against any of the defendants on behalf of the same or other persons .... 

28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A). The "home-state controversy" exception codified at 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(d)(4)(B) similarly requires the federal courts to decline to exercise CAFAjurisdiction over 

any class action in which "two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in 

the aggregate, and the primaiy defendants, are citizens of the State in which the action was 

originally filed." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B). The Ninth Circuit treats these provisions as setting 

forth "exceptions to jurisdiction" under CAF A. Serrano, 478 F.3d at 1023. 

2 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(3), the courts may, in their discretion, decline to 

exercise CAFAjurisdiction where "greater than one-third but less than two-thirds of the 

Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-00425-PK Document 25 Filed 07/21/15 Page 3 of 6
consequence, and because of the importance of avoiding federal disposition of any claim not 

subject to federal jurisdiction, I directed both patiies to submit evidence or argument material to 

the applicability or non-applicability of those abstention rules (chiefly, evidence or argument 

relevant to the determination of the state of citizenship of the putative class members as of the 

date this action was removed to federal cou1i). In addition, I stayed fu1iher proceedings in this 

action other than discovery calculated to lead to the production of admissible evidence regarding 

the place of citizenship of the members of Reddick's proposed class of plaintiffs as of the date 

this action was removed, pending this comi's dete1mination regarding its subject-matter 

jurisdiction to consider Reddick's claims. 

On July 16, 2015, both GCS and Reddick responded to the Order to Show Cause. GCS 

responded by reiterating its previously proffered argument that Reddick has failed to meet his 

burden in connection with his motion for remand to establish that this comi lacks subject-matter 

jurisdiction over his claims, while Reddick responded by asse1iing that this court should remand 

his action because GCS' response to the Order to Show Cause was inadequate, and in the 

alternative by requesting a seven-day extension of time to supplement his response, in order to 

permit review of approximately 11,000 pages of documents produced to him by GCS bearing on 

the citizenship of the members of the proposed class. 

As to GCS' response, I agree with Reddick as to its inadequacy to establish that this court 

may properly exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. If at any time prior to final 

judgment it appears that a federal comi lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a removed case, the 

members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate and the primary defendants are citizens 

of the State in which the action was originally filed." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(3). 

Page 4 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-00425-PK Document 25 Filed 07/21/15 Page 4 of 6
coutt must remand the action to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The question of who bears 

the burden of persuasion under CAF A in connection with a motion to remand is immaterial to 

this coutt's sua sponte determination of whether it may properly exercise federal subject-matter 

jurisdiction. In consequence, GCS' response provides no grounds for disregarding the empirical 

likelihood that one or both of the mandato1y abstention mies discussed above is applicable to 

prohibit such exercise. 

Neve1theless, because (as stated in the Order to Show Cause of June 1, 2015) it would be 

improvident for this co mt to determine the applicability of the statutmy abstention rules on the 

sole basis of the evidence referenced above, this court's detennination regarding its jurisdiction to 

hear Reddick's claims should be based on the fullest evidentiary record that may be arranged 

without undue bmden. Reddick's request for extension of time is therefore granted. Reddick is 

directed to supplement his response with evidence and argument regarding the place of 

citizenship of the members of his proposed class of plaintiffs as of the date this action was 

removed, by not later than midnight on Tuesday, July 28, 2015. GCS may, in its discretion, 

likewise supplement its response to the Order to Show Cause by not later than midnight on July 

28, 2015, with argument or evidence bearing on this court's sua sponte determination of whether 

it may properly exercise federal subject-matter jurisdiction over Reddick's claims 

notwithstanding the mandatory abstention mies codified at Sections 1332( d)( 4)(A) and 

1332( d)( 4)(B) or the discretionary abstention rule codified at Section 1332( d)(3). 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, Reddick is directed to supplement his response to this 

coutt's Order (#17) to Show Cause dated June 1, 2015, and GCS may optionally supplement its 

Page 5 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-00425-PK Document 25 Filed 07/21/15 Page 5 of 6
response to that same Order as discussed above by not later than midnight on Tuesday, July 28, 

2015. 

Dated this 21st day of July, 2015. 

Hqnorable Paul Pap k 

Urlited States Magistrate Judge 

Page 6 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-00425-PK Document 25 Filed 07/21/15 Page 6 of 6