Pratt v. Bonafide Provisions, LLC

1
25-cv-1982-AJB-KSC
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
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GEORGE PRATT, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
BONAFIDE PROVISIONS, LLC,
Defendant.
Case No.: 25-cv-1982-AJB-KSC
ORDER:
(1) DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
(2) DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS (Doc. No. 9)
On August 1, 2025, Plaintiff George Pratt (“Plaintiff”) filed a class action complaint
against Defendant Bonafide Provisions, LLC (“Bonafide”). (Doc. No. 1.) Upon review of
the pleadings, this Court does not subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly,
for the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND. Bonafide’s pending motion is dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT.
Although Bonafide does not raise of subject matter jurisdiction in its motion to
dismiss, “this Court has an independent obligation to address sua sponte whether [it] ha[s]
subject matter jurisdiction.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 358 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.
2004) (citing Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 1999)); see also Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
Case 3:25-cv-01982-AJB-GC Document 14 Filed 01/30/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
25-cv-1982-AJB-KSC
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
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). “Federal courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.”
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “It is to be presumed
that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary
rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction[.]” Id.
Here, Plaintiff invokes federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act
(“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). (See Doc. No. 1 ¶ 7.) Federal courts have original
jurisdiction under CAFA where the number of proposed plaintiffs is greater than 100, there
is a diversity of citizenship between any member of the class and any defendant, and the
amount in controversy is more than $5,000,000, exclusive of interests and costs. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(d); Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 84–85 (2014).
However, the district court “shall decline to exercise jurisdiction” over a class action in
which two-thirds or more of the class members, and the primary defendants, are citizens of
the state in which the action was originally filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B).
Plaintiff alleges he is a citizen of California and a resident of Modesto, California.
(Id. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff alleges that Bonafide “is a California corporation with its principal place
of business in Carlsbad, Claifornia.”1 (Id. ¶ 6.) Because Plaintiff and Bonafide are both
citizens of California, minimum diversity does not exist. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to
establish diversity of citizenship between the parties as required for this court to exercise
subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Moe v. GEICO Indem. Co., 73 F.4th 757, 763
(9th Cir. 2023) (noting that CAFA “impose[s] specific requirements that must be satisfied
before federal jurisdiction is conferred”).
1 It is unclear whether Bonafide is a limited liability company or a corporation. However, the distinction
is likely immaterial to the jurisdiction analysis. See Ferrell v. Express Check Advance of SC LLC, 591
F.3d 698, 700–05 (4th Cir. 2010) (holding that an LLC is an “unincorporated association” for CAFA
purposes under § 1332(d)(10) and thus a citizen of the state where it has its principal place of business
and the State under whose laws it was organized); see also Jack v. Ring LLC, 553 F. Supp. 3d 711, 714–
15 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (finding that an LLC is “an unincorporated association” for CAFA purposes, though
it remains an open question in the Ninth Circuit).
Case 3:25-cv-01982-AJB-GC Document 14 Filed 01/30/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
25-cv-1982-AJB-KSC
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
As for the amount in controversy, Plaintiff’s complaint provides a conclusory
allegation that the amount in controversy is satisfied. (See Doc. No. 1 ¶ 14.) But
“conclusory allegations at to the amount in controversy are insufficient.” Matheson v.
Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090–91 (9th Cir. 2003).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
If Plaintiff chooses, he may file an amended complaint by no later than February 13, 2026.
Any amended complaint must cure the deficiencies outlined in this Order. If Plaintiff files
an amended complaint, Defendant must file a responsive pleading by no later than
March 6, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 30, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-01982-AJB-GC Document 14 Filed 01/30/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3