Otay Hydraulics, Inc. v. Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OTAY HYDRAULICS, INC.,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-55016
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-07357-ODW-
VBK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 6, 2013**
Pasadena, California
Before: CALLAHAN, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
After this putative class action was filed in California state court, the defendant
filed a notice of removal, alleging diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).
FILED
FEB 12 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

The district court sua sponte remanded the case to state court because no individual
plaintiff’s claim exceeded $75,000. We have jurisdiction over the defendant’s appeal
of the remand order under 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1).
1. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), the district courts have original jurisdiction
over class actions in which at least one plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than any
defendant and in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. This
provision, part of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), Pub. L. No. 109-
2, 119 Stat. 4, does not require that any putative class member’s claim exceeds
$75,000. In contrast, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(i), the CAFA provision governing
“mass actions,” does require that at least one plaintiff’s claim exceeds $75,000.
Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 689 (9th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).
The parties correctly agree that the district court erred by applying the jurisdictional
requirements for a mass action to this class action.
2. The plaintiff argues that the remand order should nonetheless be affirmed
because the amount in controversy does not exceed $5,000,000. Defendant argues to
the contrary. Because the district court has never considered those arguments in the
first instance, they may be directed to that court on remand.

-- 2 of 3 --

We VACATE the district court’s order and REMAND for further proceedings
consistent with this memorandum.

-- 3 of 3 --