Brinkley v. Monterey Financial Services, Inc., No. 17-56335 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's order granting plaintiff's motion to remand a putative class action alleging that Monterey recorded or monitored its telephone conversations with plaintiff without giving her notice. The panel held that plaintiff did not meet the requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act's (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332, home-state controversy exception because she did not prove that two-thirds of all class members were California citizens. In this case, plaintiff seeks to remand an otherwise valid CAFA case to state court when only a portion of the class meets the two-thirds citizenship requirement. The size of the entire class is unknown and plaintiff failed to prove that two-thirds of class members are California citizens because there was no evidence regarding the citizenship of class members who made or received a phone call from Monterey while located in, but not residing in, California or Washington. Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Class Action Fairness Act The panel vacated the district court’s order granting plaintiff’s motion to remand her putative class action to California state court, and remanded the action to the district court for further proceedings. Plaintiff brought a putative class action in California state court alleging that Monterey Financial Services Company recorded or monitored its telephone conversations with plaintiff without giving her notice. Monterey removed the action to federal court and plaintiff moved to remand the case back to California state court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act’s home-state controversy exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B). Based on the statistical evidence presented, the district court found that at least two-thirds of class members were California citizens, and therefore the district court granted plaintiff’s motion. The panel held that a plaintiff could not remand an otherwise valid Class Action Fairness Act case to state court when only a portion of the class meets the two-thirds citizenship requirement. The panel determined that this was what plaintiff sought to do here—remand a class action based on evidence of only some class members’ citizenship. The panel held that the size of the entire class was unknown and plaintiff failed to prove that two-thirds of class members were California citizens because there was no evidence
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.