Free Motion to Remand - District Court of California - California

Case 5:07-cv-04788-RS

Document 10

Filed 10/17/2007

Page 1 of 23

WALTERJ. LACK (CA SBN575s0) PAUL A. TRAINA (CA SBN 155805) 2 BRYAN C. PAYNE,(CA SBN230966) ENGSTROM, LIPSCOMB & LACK, P.C. 3 10100 Santa MonicaBoulevard, Floor 16th LosAngeles, 90067-4107 CA A (310)552-3800 Telephone: Facsimile: (310)552-9434 5
1
a

6 7 8 9 l0

(pro ANDREW SHER(TX SBN 007899623) hacviceto be requested) THE SHER LAW FIRM P.L.L.C. 4151Southwest Freeway, Suite 435 Houston, TX77027 Telephone:(713)626-2100 Facsimile: (713)626-2101

ALEXANDERB. KLEIN, III (TX SBN 1155625) hacviceto berequesteS Qtro THE KLEIN LAW FIRM 1 l 2000TheLyric Center 440Louisiana 12 Houston, TX77002 (713) Telephone: 650-1 I I 1 1 3 Facsimile: (713)227-1121 1 4 Attorneys Plaintiff for UNLIMITED TRACY DeFATTAd/b/aBOOKKEEPING

15 t6 t7

UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RS CASENO. C0704788 No. Courl Clara Superior Case 107CV091687] [Santa NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO REMAND CASE TO STATE COURT.OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO ENGAGE IN LIMITED
) ) ) JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF

1 8 TRACY DeFATTAd/b/aBOOKKEEPING ) Individually on behalf and of ) UNLIMITED, 1 9 herself, all others similarlysituated, and ) 20 21
V,

Flaintiff,

22 INTUIT INC., and DOES 1 through 100,
^a Z) a A L+

inclusive, Defendants.

)
)

BRYAN C. PAYNE DATE: November 21,2001 TIME: 9:30a.m. CTRM: 4

25 26 27 28
294234.1

) ) )
)

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO REMAND CASETO STATE COURT,OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO ENGAGE IN LIMITED JURISDICTIONALDISCOVERY;MEMORANDUMOF POINTSAND AUTHORITIES;DECLARATION OF BRYAN C. PAYNE

Case 5:07-cv-04788-RS

Document 10

Filed 10/17/2007

Page 2 of 23

1 z
a J

TO DEFENDANT INTUIT INC. AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November21,2001 at 9:30 a.m.,or as soonthereafter as the matter may be heard, in Courtroom 4 of the United StatesDistrict Court for the Northern District of California located at280 SouthFirst Street,SanJose,California 95113,beforeMagistrateJudge Richard Seeborg, Plaintiff will move the Court for an orderremandingthis caseto the Superior Court of the Stateof California for the County of SantaClara from which it was removed. This casemust be remanded StateCourt for the following reason: to (1) The removing Defendanthas failed to establishthat this Court has subjectmatter

lt

5 6 7 8

9 jurisdiction over this action. l0
The RepresentativePlaintiff fuither moves this Court for an order requiring the removing

l 1 Defendantto pay Plaintiff for all her costsand actualexpenses, including attorney'sfeesincuned by l2 13
reasonof theseremoval proceedings. This Motion is based this Notice of Motion andMotion, the attached on Memorandum Points of

1 4 and Authorities,the Declarationof Bryan C. Payneandthe exhibitsattachedthereto,on all pleadings, l5
papersand recordson file herein, and on suchother and fuither oral and documentaryevidenceasmay

1 6 be presented the hearingof this Motion. at 11 1 8 DATED: !'7 October ,zoOl t9 20 21 22
z)

ENGSTROM,LIPSCOMB & LACK THE SHER LAW FIRM P.L.L.C. THE KLEIN LAW FIRM

By LTERJ. PAUL A TRA BRYAN C. PA\T{E ANDREW SHER ALEXANDERB. KLEIN, III for Attorneys Plaintiff

24 25 26 27 28

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO REMAND CASETO STATE COURT,OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO ENGAGEIN LIMITED JURISDICTIONALDISCOVERY;MEMORANDUMOF POINTSAND AUTHORITIES;DECLARATION OF BRYAN C" PAYNE

Case 5:07-cv-04788-RS

Document 10

Filed 10/17/2007

Page 3 of 23

I

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION This lawsuit arisesfrom an unlawful schemeemployedby Intuit, Inc. ("Defendant")to defraud, misleadand deceiveTracy DeFatta("Plaintiff') and eachClassmemberby sellingto them computer software upgradesthat erased andlor deactivatedsoftware features previously purchasedby them. Specifically, on or after October 1, 2006, each member of the Class purchasedand installed QuickBooks200lt or downloadedand installedthe automaticupgradeto QuickBooks2006.2See Complaintfl2. Prior to this, eachClassmemberhad purchased eitherQuickBooks2004,QuickBooks 2005 or QuickBooks2006,which were developed, marketed, distributedand soldby the Defendant to

2 I.
a J

4 5 6 7 8 9

1 0 the generalpublic. Id. atl17.
l 1
l l

The earlierversionsof QuickBooks(2004,2005,2006)were popularwith consumers because

I 2 they included Do-It-Yourself or manualentry payroll featuresthat facilitated the basicmanualentry of 1 3 essential data. Defendantreleased QuickBooks200Tinto the streamof commerce.NeitherPlaintiff 1 4 nor the Classmembersknew - that by installing QuickBooks 2007 or downloadingthe automatic 1 5 upgrade- the Do-It-Yourself or manualentrypayroll features they had previouslyenjoyedandrelied 1 6 upon would be erased deactivated.Without any warning or disclosure its customers, or to Defendant 1 7 sold a productto eachClassmemberthat surreptitiously eliminatedsoftwarefeatures which they for 1 8 had previouslypaid compensation Defendant. to 19
purgedor deactivated Do-It-Yourselfor manual the Adding insult to injury, once Def'endant

20 payroll featuresfrom consumers'2004,2005,and2006 versionsof QuickBooks,Defendant revealed 2 1 that the only way to revive thesefeatures payroll service.1d at would be to subscribe afee-based to 22 flfl4 and 5. The representative Plaintiff and eachClassmember were being directedto pay recurring
LJ

for subscription feesto access samepayroll services which they had alreadypaid Defendant the when

24
' The "QuickBooks" programis financial softwaredeveloped, distributed, marketed and sold by the Defendantto the generalpublic. It allows its usersto carry-outpayroll functionsandproduce 26 InternalRevenueServicerepofts. The latestversionof this programis "QuickBooks2007." 2 Each memberof the Classeither purchased and installedQuickBooks2007 or downloaded 2l program to 2006,anearlierversionofthe QuickBooks andinstalledthe automaticupgrade QuickBooks (hereinafterthe "automatic upgrade?'). 28

25

2s4234.1

I

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO REMAND CASETO STATE COURT,OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, OF PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO ENGAGEIN LIMITED JURISDICTIONALDISCOVERY;MEMOR.ANDUM POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;DECLARATION OF BRYAN C. PAYNE

Case 5:07-cv-04788-RS

Document 10

Filed 10/17/2007

Page 4 of 23

I 2
5 A

theypurchased earlierversions QuickBooks.1d at$4. Moreover,Defendant of specificallyrepresented that QuickBooks 2007 and the automaticupgradewould in no way affect the licenserights consumers obtainedwhen they purchased earlierversionsof QuickBooks. Id. at fl3. This turnedout to be a gross misrepresentation. purchasing By and installingQuickBooks200Tor downloadingand installingthe automatic upgrade,the Class members' license rights were monumentally affected. Not only were previously paid for featureserasedor deactivated the installationof QuickBooks 2007 and the by automaticupgrade, revival of suchfeatures but hingedon the Classmembers'willingnessto pay again for the very features they had alreadyobtained purchasing by 2005 or QuickBooks2004,QuickBooks 2006. QuickBooks Defendant'sconductin marketingandsellingQuickBooks2007andthe automatic upgrade was

a

5 6 l 8 9 10

1 i and continuesto be fraudulent,unlawful, deceptiveand unfair. In response, August 8, 2007, on 1 2 Plaintiff on behalf of herself and each Class member filed a Complaint against Defendant. The
1 a I J

Complaintsetsforth causes actionfor Breachof Contract, of Conversion violating $$i7200, et seq. and

1 4 and 17500.et sea.of the CaliforniaBusiness Professions & Code. 15 1 6 il. I7
STATEMENT OF THE CASE This lawsuit was properly filed in the SuperiorCourt of California,County of SantaClaraon

1 8 August 8,2007 . On August 16,2007, it was servedon Defendant. Plaintiff broughther action on 1 9 behalfof herselfand otherssimilarly situated who ownedversions2004,2005or 2006of QuickBooks 20 and subsequently purchased the QuickBooks200Tor downloaded automaticupgrade. 2T
77 removedthis lawsuitto the United States District Courtfor On September ,2001, Defendant

22 the Northern District of California on the groundsof diversity jurisdiction under the ClassAction
^a

z)

Act ("CAFA"), and pursuant 28 U.S.C. $$1332,1441(b),1446, to and 1453. In response, Fairness

24 Plaintiff files the instant Motion to Remand on the sround that the Court lacks subiect matter 25 jurisdiction over this action. 26 ill 27 28
294234,1

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO REMAND CASETO STATE COURT,OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO ENGAGEIN LIMITED JURISDICTIONALDISCOVERY;]IIEMORANDUMOF POINTSAND AUTHORITIES;DECLARATION OF BRYAN C. PAYNE

Case 5:07-cv-04788-RS

Document 10

Filed 10/17/2007

Page 5 of 23

I 2
a J

III.

DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF JUSTIFYING REMOVAL FederalCourls are coutls of limited jurisdiction. SeeKokkonenv. GuardianLife Ins. Co, oJ

+

A

Am., 5l1 U. S. 375, 377 (1994). As such,they will strictly construe their jurisdiction andresolveany doubtsregardingit in favor of the non-removing party. SeeShamrockOil and GasCorp.v. Sheets,3l3 U.S. 100, 107-09(1941). As a generalrule, an actionis removableto a FederalCourt only if it might havebeenbroughtthereoriginally.2SU.S.C. If,atanytimebeforefinaljudgmentaFederal $1aa1(a). Court determines that it lacks subjectmatterjurisdiction over a removedmatter,that mattermust be remanded the StateCourt in which it was initially hled. 28 U.S.C. 91a47(c). to Under CAFA, a Federal Courl has "original jurisdiction" over civil mattersin which: the

5 6 7 8 9 10

1 1 aggregate amountin controversy (exclusive interestand exceeds sum or value of $5,000,000.00 the of 1 2 cost); the aggregate number of putative Class membersis 100 or greater;and any memberof the 1 3 putativeClassis acitizen of a Statedifferentfrom that of any Defendant. 28 U.S.C. $1332(d). 14
In any action to remove a matterto a FederalCourt on the basisof diversityjurisdiction,the

1 5 proprietyof suchjurisdiction must appear plainly on the faceof the pleading.SeeRockwell Int'l Credit 1 6 Corp. v. US Airuaft Ins. Group, 823 F.2d 302,304 (9th Cir. 1987). CAFA makesno exceptions to I 7 this rule. Where, as in the instant case,an action has beenremoved and the amount in controversyis 1 8 in doubt, there is a "strong presumption" that the Plaintiff hasclaimed an amountinsufficient to confer t 9 Federal Courljurisdiction. SeeGausv. Miles,Inc.,980F.2d 564,566(9th Cir. 1992)(citing St.Paul 20 Mercurylndem.Co.v.RedCabCo.,303U.S.283,288-90(1938). TheNinthCircuitCourtofAppeals 2 1 has placed the burden of overcoming this presumption squarely on the shouldersof removing 22 Defendants.SeeAbrego Abrego v. The Dow ChemicalCo.,443 F.3d 676,682 (9th Cir. 2006);
z)

Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank N ational Ass' n, 479 F "3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2007). Accordingto the Ninth Circuit, if a complaintis silentasto the specificamountin controversy

24

2 5 being alleged,the party proposing FederalCourl jurisdiction (here, Defendants)must prove by a 26 "preponderance the evidence"that CAFA's $5,000,000.00 amountin controversy of requirement has 2l 28
294234.1

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO REMAND CASETO STATE COURT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO ENGAGE IN LIMITED JURISDICTIONALDISCOVERY;MEMORANDUIVI OF POINTSAND AUTHORITIES;DECLARATION OF BRYAN C. PAYNE

Case 5:07-cv-04788-RS

Document 10

Filed 10/17/2007

Page 6 of 23

I
z
a J

beenmet. See AbregoAbregov. TheDow Chemical Co.,443F.3d 676,683(9th Cir. 2006); Sanchez v. MonumentalLife Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996);Lowery v. AlabamaPower Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1192 (quotingLowery v. HoneywellInt'l [nc.,460 F.Supp.2d1285(N.D, Ala. 2006). Defendanthas not met its burden. In the instant case,Plaintiffls Complaint is silent as to a specific amountbeing placed into controversy.SeeComplaintp.4, fl10. Instead, Plaintiff disclaimsfor herselfand eachClassmember anyindividual recoverythat would exceed jurisdictionalamountin controversy the requirement under 28 U.S.C.$ 1332(a).SeeComplaint, p.4,n.1. It is a well-settled principlethat a Plaintiffis a "master of fhis or her] complaint," and barring "bad faith," may draft a complaint in any mannerso asto avoid

4
J

6 7 8 9

1 0 Federal Courtjurisdiction. SeeHolmesGroup,Inc. v. Vornado Circulation Sys., Air hnc.,535 U.S. 826, 1 1 831 (2002);CaterpillarInc. v. Williams,482U.S. 386, 398-99(1981);Vallesv. Ivy Hill Corp.,410 1 2 F.3d 1071,1075(9th Cir. 2005). Moreover,Plaintiffs arenot "obligatedto overstate their damages to 1 3 satisfl'theDefendant'sinterestin a federalforum but maypleadconservatively secure state to a forum." 1 4 SeeLowdermilkv. tlS. BankNationalAss'n,479F.3d994,1003(9th Cir.2007). 15
In its Notice of Removalof Action to FederalCourt ("Notice of Removal"),Defendant fails to

1 6 prove by a preponderance the evidencethat Flaintiff s Complaint shows an amountin controversy of 1 1 sufficientto justifu FederalCourl jurisdiction. In an effort to meet its burden,Defendant submitsthe 1 8 four page Declaration of its Vice Presidentof Finance,Ken Wach. Mr. Wach's conclusionare t 9 unsubstantiated no factual basis is provided. Mr. Wach does not explain or provide any facts and 20 regardinghow he arrived at the number of Classmembersor why there is a discrepancy the number in 2 1 of Classmembers. Quite frankly, we do not know if Mr. Wach useda computerprogramto download 22
-a

informationregardingthe Classmembers whetherhe physicallyretrievedvarioussales or files in order The basisfor his conclusions unknown and simplynot provided. to arrive at his proposedestimates. is Mr. Wach first estimates how manyindividualsandbusinesses likely purchased versions 2004,

ZJ

24

2 5 2005,or 2006 of QuickBooksand extrapolates from this that "no fewer than27,778- 34,333persons 26 or businesses also after October 7,2006, either upgradedto the 2007 version or downloadedand 2 7 installed automatic p.6, an upgrade QuickBooks to 2006Software."Noticeof Removal, In.10-13. Mr. 28
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO REMAND CASETO STATE COURT,OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO ENGAGEIN LIMITED JURISDICTIONALDISCOVERY;MEMORANDUMOF POINTSAND AUTHORITIES;DECLARATION OF BRYAN C. PAYNE

Case 5:07-cv-04788-RS

Document 10

Filed 10/17/2007

Page 7 of 23

I 2
3

Wach, however, fails to explain the methodology employed to obtain this estimate, identiSr the source(s) information from which the estimatewas derived,and provide any evidence of that these estimates evolvedfrom accurate, unbiasedand objectivedata. Further evidencethat Defendant'scalculationsareoffered without a properbasisis the fact that immediatelyfollowing Mr. Wach's initial conclusion ("27,778- 34,333"individualsandbusiness may be Classmembers),Mr. Wach states: "[aJnd, this numberis most likely to be no lessthan 500,000." Once again, no justification is given for this incredible estimate which cerlainly varies in gross

4 5 6 7

8 proportionsto the original Classestimate.Mr. Wach doesnot provideany insightinto how we arrived 9
at this figure, why it is reasonable, the methodologyhe used for the purposesof obtainingthis or

1 0 number. 1l
Defendant'sexpansiveand unsupportable range of who it considersto be membersof the

1 2 putativeClasssuggests it is merelyguessing speculating to the actualnumberof individuals that or as 1 3 or businesses comprisingthe Classwithout disclosing how the conclusions were reached.Conjecture 1 4 andspeculation not satis$r "preponderance do the ofthe evidence"standard necessary conferFederal to 1 5 Courtjurisdiction. SeeLowdermilkv. U.S.BankNationalAss'n,479F.3d994,1002(9th Cir.200l). 1 6 Defendantshave not met their burden. Plaintiff respectfullyrequests this action be remanded that back 1 7 to the SantaClara SuperiorCourt. 18 t 9 IV. 20 21 zz
ZJ

CAFA PROVIDBS STATUTORY EXCEPTIONS TO REMOVAL AND THESE EXCEPTIONS MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THIS ACTION A. The o'HomeState" ExceptionTo RemovalUnder CAFA May Apply To This Case.

was to expandFederal While it is true that the purposebehindCAFA's implementation Court jurisdiction over Classactions,it alsotrue that when drafting CAFA, Congress recognized that some

24 actionsshouldremainin StateCourl. Accordingly,the"Home State"exception includedin CAFA. was 2 5 Underthis provision,a FederalCourt must decline jurisdiction over a Classactionin which two-thirds 26 or more of the putative class membersand all of the primary Defendantsare citizens of the Statein 27 which the actionwas initially filed. 28 U.S.C.$1332(dX4XB). 28
294234.1

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO REMAND CASETO STATE COURT,OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO ENGAGE IN LIMITED JURISDICTIONALDISCOVERY;MEMORANDUMOF. POINTSAND AUTHORITIES:DECLARATION OF BRYAN C. PAYNE

Case 5:07-cv-04788-RS

Document 10

Filed 10/17/2007

Page 8 of 23

I 2
a J

Plaintiff s Class action was filed in the California State Court pursuant to the contractual provision which demands that all actionsand claims againstIntuit be broughtin California. Intuit is the only Defendant in this matter, and is a citizen of California.3 Plaintiff is unable to determine whethertwo-thirds or more of the Classmembersare California citizens. However,it appears likely that amajority of Classmemberscould residein Californiagiven the Defendant's citizenship their and provision requiringeachof their client's claimsto be litigatedin California. The unilateralcontractual information- into its clients' residences is unascertainable from publicly availableinformationand is within the exclusivepossession control of Defendant.Consequently, and Plaintiff hasno meansof accuratelydetermininghow many membersof the putative Classare California citizensandhow many

4 5 6 1 8 9

1 0 are citrzens of other States - facts that may be essential for this Court to make an adequate 1 1 determinationof whether this action belongsin Stateor FederalCourl and/orwhetherthis Couft would 1 2 like to exerciseits discretionon whetherto remandthis caseor not. See,IY(C). Infra. 13 t4
As this Courl is acutely aware, ascertainingwhether a removed action is properly in Federal Court, especiallyin light of statutoryexceptions removal, is more times than not a fact-specific to

1 5 inquiry. Limited jurisdictional discoverythat is calculated lead to factsrelatingto the proprietyof to 1 6 federaljurisdiction will likely aid in this inquiry. Importantly,allowing suchdiscoveryis within the 1 7 discretionary purview ofthis Court. WellsFargo & Co. v. WellsFargo ExpressCo.,556F.2d406(9th 1 8 Cir. 1977);SeealsoH.L. Moore Drug Exch.,Inc. v. Smith,Kline & FrenchLab.,384F.2d97(2d Cir. 1 9 1967). The needfor jurisdictional discoverybecomes evenmore apparent when a removingpafty, as 2 0 in the instantcase,hasexclusivecontrol andpossession the very informationa non-removing party of 2 1 needsin order to rebut removal. Simply put, where a "fD]efendant has vital knowledgethat the 22 Plaintiff may lack, a burden that inducesthe removing party to come forward with the information LJ

so that the choicebetweenStateand FederalCourt may be madeaccurately is much to be desired."

24 Brilt v. Countrywide HomeLoans,lnc.,F.3d446,448(7th Cir. 2005). 25 26 27
' A corporation may be a citizen of up to two states,the statein which it was incorporated, and Defendant was incorporated the statein which it maintainsits principalplaceof business.In this case, is 2 8 in Delaware,and its principal placeof business in California. 6 294234.1
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO REMAND CASETO STATE COURT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO ENGAGEIN LIMITED JURISDICTIONALDISCOVERY;MEMORANDUM OF POINTSAND AUTHORITIES;DECLARATION OF BRYAN C. PAYNE

Case 5:07-cv-04788-RS

Document 10

Filed 10/17/2007

Page 9 of 23

1 2
5

Relevantto the instant matter,the Court in Schwartzv. ComcastCorp.,No. Civ. A. 05-2340, 2005 WL I7994I4 (E.D. Pa.July 28, 2005)- a casewith remarkablysimilar factsto thoseasserted by Plaintiff - was taskedwith determiningthe proprietyof federaljurisdiction over an actionwherethe citizenship eachclassmemberwasunclear.Specifically Schwartzinvolveda breach contract of of suit , filed in a StateCourt as a Classactionthat was subsequently removedto a Federal Court. The Plaintiff allegedthat federaljurisdiction was improper. The basisfor this asseftionwas that more than twothirds of the putative classmemberswere citizensof the Defendant'sStateof citizenship, which was also the forum State,and thereforeCAFA's "Home State"exceptionwas applicable.Id. at *2. The Plaintiff, however,was unableto establish this assertion because Defendant the had "control over the

4 5 6 7 8 9

1 0 informationthat would establish citizenshipof the variousmembersof [the plaintiffl's proposed the 1 1 class. 1d at *J. Given thesefacts,the Court permittedthe Plaintiff to engage limited discoveryin in 1 2 orderto establishthe applicabilityof the "Home State"exceptionunder CAFA. 13
t+

Like the Plaintiff in Schwartz,Plaintiff in the instantcaseis unableto asceftain Stateof the citizenshipfor eachClassmemberbecause Defendant possession control of this information. has and

1 5 Without this information, Plaintiff cannotestablishwhethermore thantwo-thirds of the Classmembers 1 6 are California citizens,and consequently not be ableto show that the "Home State"exceptionis will 1 7 applicableto her case.Therefore,permitting limited discoveryunderthe aforementioned circumstances 1 8 would not only be appropriate, would aid this Court in determiningwhetherthis caseshouldbe in but 1 9 Federal StateCoufi.a or 20 21 22
/.)
1AA L

B.

The "Local Controversy" ExceptionTo Removal Under CAFA Mav Apply To This Case.

CAFA provides anotherexceptionto removal:the "Local Controversy"exception. Like its "Home State" relative, the "Local Controversy" exception too recognizesthat ceftain class actions shouldremain in StateCourl. Under this provision,if the following requirements met, a Federal are

2 5 Court should declinejurisdiction over a classaction: (a) more than two-thirds of the putativeclass 2 6 membersare citizens of the forum State;(b) at leastone of the Defendants a citizen of the forum is 27 28
o The proposeddiscoveryis attached Exhibit"I" to the Declarationof Bryan C. Payne. as
2s4234.r 7

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO REMAND CASETO STATE COURT,OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO ENGAGEIN LIMITED JURISDICTIONALDISCOVERY;MEMORANDUM OF POINTSAND AUTHORITIES;DECLARATION OF BRYAN C. PAYNE

Case 5:07-cv-04788-RS

Document 10

Filed 10/17/2007

Page 10 of 23

1 z
a

State;(c) the actionis againstapartyfrom whom "significantrelief is sought";(d) the actionis against aparty whose conductformed a "significantbasis" for the assefied claims; (e) the principal injuries claimed in the action must have occurredin the forum State;and (1) within the three yearspreceding the filing of an action, no classaction was filed againstany Defendant,in any forum, asserting same the or similarclaims. 28 U.S.C.$1332(dX4XA) (2005).

4

6 7 8 9

As statedabove,it is unclear whether more than two-thirds of the putative Classmembersare citizensof California,the forum Stateandthe Stateof Defendant'scitizenship. Defendant maintains exclusivepossession control over informationpertainingto the citizenshipof the putativeClass and members. Plaintiffcan, however,satisfythe remainingrequirements underthe "Local Controversy"

1 0 exceptionto removal. Intuit is the only Defendant this action,and significantrelief is being sought in l 1 againstit. Additionally, it was Defendant's unlawful conductthat gaveriseto Plaintiff s Classaction, I2
and suchconduct formed a significant basisfor the asserted claims. Likewise, the Plaintiff is unaware

1 3 of any class actions that have been filed, in any forum, within the last three yearsagainstDefendant 1 4 allegingthe sameor similar causes actionthatarenow beingassefied Plaintiff. Thus,shouldthe of by 1 5 Courtpermit limited jurisdictional discoverycalculated leadto informationaboutthe citizenship to of 1 6 eachClassmember,the "Local Controversy"exceptionmay be applicableto this action. 17 18 19
C. The "Interest Of Justice" ExceptionTo RemovalUnder CAFA May Apply To This Case.

Couft's may also remand an action on the basis of CAFA's "interest of justice" exception.

20 Underthis provision,if more than one-thirdbut lessthantwo-thirdsof the putativeclassmembers and 2 1 all ofthe primary Defendants citizensof theforum State, thenthe "Home State"exception are explicitly 22
z)
1AA L

grantsFederalCourtswith the discretionto acceptor declinejurisdiction "in the interestof justice." 2 8 U . S . C .$ 1 3 3 2 ( d X 3 ) . Should the Courl permit Plaintiff to engagein limited jurisdictional discoveryin order to

2 5 ascefiainthe propriety of FederalCourt jurisdiction over this matter, Plaintiff will be equippedto 26 answerthe questionof whether more than one-thirdbut less than two-thirds of the putativeClass 27 28
294234.1

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO REMAND CASETO STATE COURT,OR IN THE ALTER.NATIVE, PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO ENGAGEIN LIMITED JURISDICTIONALDISCOVERY;MEMORANDUMOF POINTSAND AUTHORITIES;DECLARATION OF BRYAN C. PAYNE

Case 5:07-cv-04788-RS

Document 10

Filed 10/17/2007

Page 11 of 23

1 membersare California citizens. The Court at that time - with the information at hand- can decide 2 whetherthe exceptionis applicableand,if so, whetherto exerciseits discretion.
a J

4 5 6 7 8 9

V.

LIMITED JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY IS NECESSARY SO THAT THE PROPRIETY OF FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION OVER THIS MATTER MAY BE ADEOUATELY DETERMINED jurisdictionaldiscovery necessary orderto aid Federal Under ceftaincircumstances is in Coufts

indeterminingtheproprietyoffederaljurisdiction. AbregoAbregov.TheDowChemicalCo.,443F.3d 676,691(9'hCir.2006). AccordingtotheNinthCircuit,"discoveryshouldordinarilybegrantedwhere pertinent facts bearing on the question of jurisdiction are controverted or where a more satisfactory

1 0 showing of the facts is necessary" ButchersUnion Local No. 498 v. SDC Investment, lnc.,788 F.2d 1 1 535,540 (9th Cir. 1986)(quotingData Disc,Inc. v. Systems TechAssociates, lnc.,557 F.2d1280,1285 1 2 n.1 (9th Cir. 1977). Further, jurisdictional discoveryis waranted "when the Courl is unable to
1 a IJ

determine, the existingrecord,whetherit hasjurisdiction." Rippeev. BostonMarket Corp.,408 F. on

1 4 Supp.2d982,985(S.D.Cal.2005).s 15
jurisdictional In addition to the Courts,Congress has acknowledged needfor focused too the

1 6 discoveryaimedat dealingwith matters pertaining jurisdiction. Following the passage CAFA and to of t7
in discussing breadthandparameters thecontextofjurisdictionaldiscovery, Senate its in Committee the

1 8 on the Judiciaryexpressed following: the 19 20 21 22
LJ

The Committee understandsthat in assessingthe various criteria newjurisdictionalprovisions,a [F]ederal[C]ourt established all these in may haveto engage somefact-finding,not unlike what is necessitated in by the existing jurisdictional statutes. The Committee further understands in someinstances,limited that discoverymay be necessaly to make these determinations. S. Rep. No. 109-14, aI 44,2005 at U.S.C.C.A.N. 42 (200s). that shebe given an opporlunity to engage limited jurisdictional in Plaintiffrespectfully requests discoverythat is aimed at obtaining information bearing on the applicability of the exceptions to

24 25 26 27 28

t At issuein Rippeewas whetheror not a Plaintiff shouldbe permittedto sendClassmembers the but a Classsurveythat the Plaintiff allegedwould help establish amountin controversy the Court to the Class determined wasmore germane themeritsof the case.While the Courl disallowed proposed jurisdictional survey,it suggested jurisdictional discoveryshouldbe allowed where it addresses that issues.Rippeev. BostonMarket Corp.,408F.Supp 982,983 (S.D. Cal. 2005). .2d
294234.1

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO REMAND CASETO STATE COURT,OR IN THE ALTER.NATIVE, PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO ENGAGEIN LIMITED JURISDICTIONALDISCOVERY;MEMORANDUMOF POINTSAND AUTHORITIES;DECLARATION OF BRYAN C. PAYNE

Case 5:07-cv-04788-RS

Document 10

Filed 10/17/2007

Page 12 of 23

I 2
J

removalunder CAFA. Plaintiff proposes limited discoverywhich includesaNotice of Depositionof the Person Most Knowledgeableand Requestfor Production of Documents. The PersonMost Knowledgeable depositionwill be focusedon ascedaining where eachClassmemberis located. The Notice of Depositionofthe Person Most Knowledgeable Request Productionof Documents and for is attached the Declarationof Bryan C. Payneas Exhibit "1". It would seemthat Defendants to would have the computer technology which would enablethem to make some type of determinationof the location of each of their clients - Classmembers. Certainly,it appears reasonable assume to that Defendants have various mailing lists which identifu its customers who purchased variousproducts. Plaintiff s only request assuming arguendo the Courtfinds that Mr. Wach'sDeclaration that provides

+

A

5 6 7 8 9

1 0 sufficientbasisfor his conclusions that they be given an opportunityto briefly discoverthe location

1 1 of Classmembersas it appears reasonable the exceptions that may apply. 12
l ^

IJ 1 A la

VI.

CONCLUSION Basedupon the foregoingreasons, Plaintiffsrespectfully request Court to remand the this case

i5

to the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara. If, however, the Court determines

1 6 that Defendant has satisfied its burden with regard to the "amount in controversy", then Plaintiff 1l
respectfully requests that shebe affordedthe opportunityto engage limited discovery that shemay in so

1 8 adequately whetheror not the "Home State,""Local Controversy"andlor"interestofjustice" establish t9 20 2l 22
z)

exceptionsapply.

DATED:OctoberI l,zOOl

ENGSTROM, LIPSCOMB LACK & THE SHERLAW FIRM P.L.L.C. THE KLEIN LAW FIRM

24 25 26 27 28
2s4234l

PAUL A. TRAINA BRYAN C. PA\'J.{E ANDREW SHER ALEXANDERB. KLEIN, III Attorneys Plaintiff for
10

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO REMAND CASETO STATE COURT,OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO ENGAGEIN LIMITED JURISDICTIONALDISCOVERY;MEMORANDUM OF POINTSAND AUTHORITIES;DECLARATION OF BRYAN C. PAYNE

Case 5:07-cv-04788-RS

Document 10

Filed 10/17/2007

Page 13 of 23

1 2
3
T

DECLARATION OF BRYAN C. PAYNE I, BRYAN C. PA\TiE, declareand stateas follows: 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensedto practice before all Courts in the State of

A

California. I am an associate with the law firm of Engstrom,Lipscomb&Lack, counsel recordfor of Plaintiff. I have been involved in the preparationof this matter on behalf of the Plaintiff I have personal, first-handknowledgeof the factssetforth herein,and if calledto testifizas a witness,could and would testiff competentlythereto. 2. Attachedhereto as Exhibit "l" is atrue and correctcopy of the fProposed] Notice of

5 6 l 8 9 10

Depositionof the PersonMost Knowledgeable and Request Productionof Documents. for I declareunderpenaltyof pe1jury underthe laws of the Stateof Californiathat the foregoingis

1 1 true and correctto the bestof my knowledge. T2
1 a IJ

tl\

Executedthis | 7

day of October2001 in Los Angeles,California.

14 15 16 t7 18 19 20 2I 22
^a L)

24 25 26 2l 28
294234.1

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO REMAND CASETO STATE COURT,OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO ENGAGE IN LIMITED JURISDICTIONALDISCOVERY;MEMORANDUMOF POINTSAND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF BRYAN C. PAYNE

Case 5:07-cv-04788-RS

Document 10

Filed 10/17/2007

Page 14 of 23

EXHIBIT 1

Case 5:07-cv-04788-RS

Document 10

Filed 10/17/2007

Page 15 of 23

1

2
a J

4
J

WALTERJ. LACK (CA SBN57550) (CA SBN 1s5805) PAULA. TRATNA BRYAN C. PA\'].{E.TCASBN230966) ENGSTROM,LIPSCOMB & LACK; P.C. 10100 Monica Santa Boulevard, Floor 16th LosAngeles, 90067-4107 CA (310)552-3800 Telephone: Facsimile: (310)552-9434 ANDREW SHER(TX SBN 007899623) hacviceto berequested) (pro THE SHERLAW FIRM P.L.L.C. 4151Southwest Freewav. 435 Suite Houston, TX77027 (713) Telephone: 626-2100 Facsimile: (713)626-2101

6 7 8 9

ALEXANDERB. KLEIN, III (TX SBN 1155625) hacviceto berequested) Qtro THE KLEIN LAW FIRM 1 0 2000TheLyric Center 440Louisiana 1 1 Houston, TXl7002 (713) Telephone: 650-1 11 1 T2 Facsimile: (713)227-II2I 1 3 Attorneys Plaintiff for TRACY DeFATTAd/b/aBOOKKEEPING LINLIMITED l4 UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT 15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 NO. CO7 RS TRACY DeFATTAd/b/aBOOKKEEPING CASE 04788 1 7 TINLIMITED, Individually on behalfof and NOTTCEOF TAKTNG herself, all others and similarlysituated, IPROPOSEDI 18 DEPOSITIONOF PERSON MOST Plaintiff, KNOWLEDGEABLEOF INTUIT,INC. AND 19 REQUESTFOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTSAT DEPOSITION 20
INTUIT INC., and DOES 1 through100,

2 1 inclusive, 22
LJ

Defendants.

.\^
LA

) ) ) ) ) ) )
I

(F.R.C.P. Rule 30(b)(6);F.R.C.P. Rule 34) DATE: To Be Determined 10:00a.m. TIME: PLACE: Engstrom,Lipscomb&Lack 10100Santa MonicaBlvd.,16th Fl. Los Angeles,Cl'90067

25 26
zl

28
4253 :ODMA/PCDOCS/ELLIIN,TD\4129 | | @PFDesktop\:

lpRoposEDl NorrcE oF TAKTNGDEPOSITIONOF PERSONMOST KNOWLEDGEABLEOF rNTUrr, INC. AND REQUESTFOR PRODUCTIONOF DOCUMENTSAT DEPOSITION

Case 5:07-cv-04788-RS

Document 10

Filed 10/17/2007

Page 16 of 23

1 z
a J

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: PLBASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 30(bX6), Plaintiff, TRACY DeFATTA, will takethe depositionof the Person ("PMK") of INTUIT, INC. on Most Knowledgeable a dateto be determined, I 0:00 a.m.,at the offices of Engstrom,Lipscomb& Lack locatedat 10 100 at SantaMonica Boulevard, 16th Floor, Los Angeles,California 90067 If an interpreter requiredto . is translate testimony,notice of samemust be givento this noticingparly within five (5) daysprior to the deposition. Saiddepositionshall be upon oral examination pursuantto F.R,C.P.Rule 30 beforean officer authorizedby law to administer oaths,and shall be recordedby videotapeas well as transcribed by

4
J

6 7 8 9

1 0 stenographicmeans. The oral examinationwill continue from day to day until completed. Pursuant i 1 to F.R.C.P.Rule 32(a) notice is hereby given that the Plaintiff intendsto introducethe deposition 1 2 testimonyof the deponentat trial.
1 a IJ

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the deponentis requested producethen and to

deposition, following documents I 4 there,at the aforementioned the and otherthings for inspection and

1 5 copying: T6 t7
INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS This demand requires production of documentsand things in your possession, custodyor

custody or control of your agents, 1 8 control, and of documentsor things that are in the possession, representatives other personswho have documents things or 1 9 employees, accountants, attorneys, or custodyor control. 20 deemedto be in your possession,

2l

1.

"DOCUMENT" is definedto includethe term "writings" as definedin FederalRules

possible way and includes written,typed, all ftule 1001,28 U.S.C.and in the broadest 22 of Evidence,
^a L)

photographic, graphicstatements, printed, drawn,recorded,electronicallyrecorded, or communications,

whether sent or receivedor neither,including, 24 or other matter, however produced or reproduced, statement, memorandum, book,repoft,study,analysis, 2 5 without limitation, anywriting, letter,telegram,

26 digest,record, handwritten note, working paper, chart,graph, drawing, photograph,videotape,diary,
booklet, tabulation, data sheet,note of interview or 27 calendar,pressrelease,magazine,newspaper, representation, bill invoice, deliveryreceipt,shippingmanifest, contract,agreement, 2 8 communication,
I :ODMdPCDOCS/ELLIIMDW 294253 I @PFDesktop\:

lpRoposEDl NOTICE oF TAKING DEPOSITIONOF PERSONMOST KNOWLEDGEABLEOF INTUIT, INC. AND REQUESTFOR PRODUCTIONOF DOCUMENTSAT DEPOSITION

Case 5:07-cv-04788-RS

Document 10

Filed 10/17/2007

Page 17 of 23

I
z
J A T

of lading,payment,ledgersheet, electronic mail, computerdisk, computeror magnetic tape,telegram, telex message,facsimile, notations and memorandaof or related to telephoneconversations or conferences, minutes and transcriptions meetings,or any other data compilationin your actualor of possession, constructive custodyor control. A copy of a documentis considered separate a document andmustbe producedif it differs in anyway from the originalandincludesall draftsandcopies bearing notations,marks, or matternot found on the original. 2. "CLASS MEMBER" is definedand consistsof all personsor entitieswho purchased

5 6 7
o

o

any version of QuickBooks 2004, 2005,or 2006 as of Octob I, 2006,and then of thosepersons er or entities,the numberwho afterOctober1,2006upgraded the 2007versionor downloaded installed to or

9

1 0 an automaticupgradeto QuickBooks2006 software. 11 12 l3 t4 15 16
DESTGNATTONOF WTTNESSPURSUANT TO F.R.C.P.RULE 30(bX6) PLEASE TAKE NOTICEthatpursuantto F.R.C.P. Rule30(b)(6), Defendant,INTUIT, [NC., is requiredto designate one or more person(s) most knowledgeable qualifiedto testiff regarding: or 1. The locationand/orresidence eachCLASS MEMBER of

DOCUMENTS AND/OR CATEGORIES OF DOCUMENTS REOUESTED Subject to the foregoing definitions, You are to identifr and to produce,on the date and time

below in your possession in the possession or T 7 setforlh above,all DOCUMENTS andthingsdescribed

l8 19

or officers,directors,accountants, other agentsol representatives. ofany ofyour attorneys, 1. Any and all DOCUMENTS andlorwritings containinginformationasto eachCLASS

20 MEMBER'S Stateof citizenship.

October ,zOOl 2 1 DATED: l'1
22
^a L) ')A
LA

ENGSTROM, LIPSCOMB LACK & THE SHER. LAW FIRM P.L.L.C. THE KLEIN LAW FIRM

By BRYAN C. PAYNE ANDREW SHER ALEXANDERB. KLEIN, III Attomeysfor Plaintiff

25 26 27 28
425 :ODMA/PCDOCS/ELLIIMDM/29 3/ 1 @PFDesktop\:
J

OF lpRoposEDl NOTICE oF TAKTNGDEPOSITTON PERSONMOST KNOWLEDGEABLEOF INTUIT, INC. AND REQUESTFOR PRODUCTIONOF DOCUMENTSAT DEPOSITION

Case 5:07-cv-04788-RS

Document 10

Filed 10/17/2007

Page 18 of 23

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE STATEOF CALIFORNIA COLINTYOF LOS ANGELES
)
)SS.

)

I am employedin the County of Los Angeles,Stateof California. I am over the ageof 18 and not a partyto the within action;my business address 10100Santa is Monica Boulevard,16thFloor,Los Angeles,California 90067-4107.On October77,2007,I servedthe foregoingdocument described as NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO REMAND CASE TO STATE COURT. OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO ENGAGE IN LIMITED JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF BRYAN C. PAYNE byplacing atrue copythereofenclosed a sealed in envelope addressed follows: as ** SEEATTACHED MAILING LIST **

10 -

(BY MAIL) I deposited suchenvelope the mail at Los Angeles, California. The envelope in was mailedwith postage thereonfully prepaid. I am "readilyfamiliar" with the firm's practice collection of 1 1 andprocessing correspondence mailing. It is deposited for with U.S. PostalServiceon that samedate in the ordinary courseof business. I am awarethat on motion of parly served,serviceis presumed t 2 invalid if postal cancellation date or postagemeter date is more than one day after date of depositfor mailing in affrdavit.

l3

1 4 the addressee(s). 15

-

(BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused suchenvelopeto be deliveredby handto the officesof

X (BY ELECTRONIC TRANSFER) I caused of the pagesof the above-entitled all documents (PDF copy)to be transmitted the recipients to notedon the attached mailing list via electronic transfer 1 6 (EMAIL). This documentwas transmitted electronictransmission reportedwithout error. by and

17 _ 18

(BY FEDERAL EXPRESS) I causedsuch envelopeto be delivered to FederalExpressfor overnightcourier serviceto the offices ofthe addressee(s). STATE: I declareunder penaltyof perjury under the laws of the Stateof Californiathat the

1 9 aboveis true and correct. 20 2T

X FEDBRAL: I dec,lare that I am employedin the office of a member of the bar of this couft at whosedirectionthe servicewas made. I declare underpenaltyof perjury underthe laws of the Stateof Californiathat the foregoingis ' l, r ' ,'lr, Lr"r,-. Jt i / i"{" ' ME,RLENE FLETCHER '. ':.

22 true and correct. Executedon October 77,2007 at Los Angeles,California.
^a

ZJ

24 25 26 27 28

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO REMAND CASETO STATE COURT,OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO ENGAGE IN LIMITED JURISDICTIONALDISCOVERY;MENIORANDUMOF POINTSAND AUTHORITIES:DECLARATION OF BRYAN C. PAYNE

Case 5:07-cv-04788-RS

Document 10

Filed 10/17/2007

Page 19 of 23

I 2
a J

SERVICE LIST DeFattct v. Intuit, Inc., et ul. USDC, Northern District CaseNo. C07 04788RS
Court- Old Courthouse Case No. 107CV091687] [SantaClaraCountySuperior

4
J

Attorney Claude Stern, M. Esq. Evette Perinypacker, D. Esq. Sayuri Sharper', K. Bsq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLTVER HEDGES, & LLP 555Twin Dolphin Drive,Suite 560 Redwood Shores, 94065 CA
Andrew Sher,Esq.

Phone/Fax
PH: (650) 801-5000 FX: (650) 801-5100 claudestern(@.ct com uinnemanuel.
gvgllQpqnnypacker@)q u innemanuel.com

Party

6 7 8 9

Attorneys for Defendant. INTUIT INC.

sayuris harper(a)qunemanue com in l.

1 0 THE SIIER LAW FIRM P.L.L.C. 1l I2
AlexanderB. Klein, III, Esq. 4151 Southwest Freewav.Suite435 Houston, TX17021

PH: (713)626-2100 FX: (713)626-2101 (a)s I corn andrcr,v hor- arv.

Co-Counsel Plaintiff, for TRACY DeFATTA

1 3 THE KLEIN LAW FIRM t4 15 I6 17 18 19 20 21 22
ZJ 1A

2000 The Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Houston, TX77002

) P H : ( 7 1 36 5 0 - 1 1 1 1 FX: (713) 227-1121 aloxfa)lhcklcin r'm. larvfi cour

Co-Counsel Plaintiff, for TRACY DeFATTA

LA

25 26 2l 28
ze4z34l 3

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO REMAND CASETO STATE COURT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO ENGAGE IN LIMITED JURISDICTIONALDISCOVERY;MEMORANDUMOF POINTSAND AUTHORITIES;DECLARATION OF BRYAN C. PAYNE

Case 5:07-cv-04788-RS

Document 10

Filed 10/17/2007

Page 20 of 23

1 WALTERJ. LACK (CA SBN57550) (CA SBN 155805) PAULA. TRATNA 2 BRYAN C. PA\'\IE, (CA SBN230966) ENGSTROM,LIPSCOMB & LACK, P.C. a J Santa 10100 MonicaBoulevard, Floor l6th LosAngeles, 90067-4101 CA 4 Telephone: (310) 552-3800 Facsimile: (310)552-9434 5 ANDREW SHER(TX SBN 007899623) hacviceto berequestefi (pro THE SHERLAW FIRM P.L.L.C. 1 4151Southwest Freeway, Suite 435 Houston, TX17027 8 Telephone:(713)626-2100 Facsimile: (713\ 626-2101 9 1 0 ALEXANDERB. KLEIN, III (TX SBN 1 155625) hacviceto berequesteQ Qtro THE KLEIN LAW FIRM 1 1 2000TheLyric Center 440Louisiana t 2 Houston, TX77002 (713) 650-li 11 Telephone: 1 3 Facsimile: (713)227-1121 1 4 Attorneys Plaintiff for I-INLIMITED TRACY DeFATTAd/b/aBOOKKEEPING 15 16 17 UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASENO. C0704788 RS No. ClaraSuperior CourtCase [Santa 107CV0916871 ORDER GRANTING [PROPOSEDI PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND CASE TO STATE COURT, OR IN THE ALTBRNATIVE,PERMITTINGPLAINTIFF TO CONDUCT LIMITED
JURISDICTIONALDISCOVERY DATE: November21,2007

6

1 8 TRACY DeFATTAd/b/aBOOKKEEPING ) Individually on behalfof ) and TINLIMITED, T 9 herself, all others similarlysituated, and ) 20 21 v.
inclusive, Defendants.

Plaintiff,

)

22 INTUIT INC., andDOES1 thlough100,
-a

) ) ) ) )
) ) )

ZJ

24 25 26

The Motion to Remandthis caseto the SuperiorCourt of California,Countyof SantaClara,

27 filed by Plaintiff on behalf of herselfand eachClassmembercameon regularlyofl _, 2 8 2001,at9:30a.m.
ze4z5e.r i IPROPOSEDIORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND CASE TO STATE COURT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO CONDUCT LIMITED JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY

Case 5:07-cv-04788-RS

Document 10

Filed 10/17/2007

Page 21 of 23

I 2
J

After full consideration all moving and opposingpapersand accompanying of exhibitsand legal authoritysubmittedby counsel,as well as counsel'soral argument,and for goodcause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Plaintiff s Motion to Remandthe caseto StateCourt is GRANTED. The Motion is granted for because Defendanthas failed to prove that this Court has subjectmatterjurisdiction over this action.

4 5 6 7 8 9 t0

OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERE,D thAt: Plaintiffis granted to leave conduct limiteddiscovery the issue theCourt'ssubject on of matter overthis action. iurisdiction

1 1 DATE,D: 12 13 14 15 T6 17 18 19 20 2l 22
z)

24 25 26
ZI

28
294259.1

[PROPOSED]ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND CASE TO STATE COURT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO CONDUCT LIMITED JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY

Case 5:07-cv-04788-RS

Document 10

Filed 10/17/2007

Page 22 of 23

1 2

CBRTIFICATE OF SERVICE STATEOF CALIFORNIA COLINTYOF LOSANGELES
)

)ss.
)

I am employedin the County of Los Angeles,Stateof Califomia. I am over the ageof 18 and not a pafty to the within action;my business address I 0100 SantaMonica Boulevard,l6th is Floor, Los Angeles,California 90067-4107. On October77, 2007 servedthe foregoingdocument ,I described [PROPOSBD] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RBMAND as CASE TO STATE COURT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO CONDUCT LIMITED JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY by placing a true copythereof in enclosed a sealedenvelopeaddressed follows: as ** SEEATTACHED MAILING LIST **

10

(BY MAIL) I deposited suchenvelopein the mail at Los Angeles, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereonfully prepaid. I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practiceof 1 l collectionand processing correspondence mailing. It is deposited for with U.S. PostalServiceon that samedate in the ordinary courseof business. I am awarethat on motion of party served, T2 serviceis presumedinvalid if postal cancellation dateor postage meter dateis more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.

13

1 4 ofthe addressee(s). 15 I6

_

(BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused suchenvelopeto be deliveredby handto the offices

17

(BY ELECTRONIC TRANSFER) I caused of the pagesof the above-entitled X all documents(PDF format copy) to be transmittedto the recipientsnoted on the attachedmailing list via electronictransfer(EMAIL). This documentwas transmitted electronictransmission by and reportedwithout error. _ (BY FEDERAL EXPRESS) I caused suchenvelopeto be deliveredto FederalExpress for

1 8 overnightcourier serviceto the offices ofthe addressee(s). t9 _ 20

STATE: I declareunder penalty of perjury under the laws of the Stateof California that the aboveis true and correct. X FEDERAL: I declarethat I am employedin the office of a memberof the bar of this coufi at

2 1 whosedirectionthe servicewas made. 22
z)

I declareunder penaltyof perjury underthe laws of the Stateof Californiathat the foregoing is true and correct. Executedon October 17,2007 at Los Angeles,California.
t.. t ( r, ,..i ^-i ( r,-r] ( (.ti rr..
! i

24 25 26
27 28
2942s9.l

MERLENEFLETCHER

IPROPOSED]ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND CASE TO STATE COURT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE. PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO CONDUCT LIMITED JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY

Case 5:07-cv-04788-RS

Document 10

Filed 10/17/2007

Page 23 of 23

I z
J

SERVICE LIST DeFattav. Intuit, Inc., et ul. USDC,NorthernDistrictCase No. C0704788 RS
Court- Old Courlhouse CaseNo. 107CV091687] fSantaClaraCountySuperior

4
J

Attorney
Claude Stern, M. Esq Evette Pennypack'er, D. Esq. SayuriK.Sharper, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES,LLP 555Twin Dolphin Drive,Suite 560 Redwood Shores, CA94065
Andrew Sher,Esq.

Phone/Fax
P H : ( 6 5 0 )8 0 1 - 5 0 0 0 F X : ( 6 5 0 )8 0 1 - s 1 0 0 olaudestern@)quinneman uel.oom pennvpackerfr)q evetle uinnemanuel.con.r sayurisharper@quinnemanuel. com

Party Attorneys for Defendant.INTUIT INC.

6 7 8 9

1 0 THE SHER LAW FIRM P.L.L.C.
4151 Southwest Freewav.Suite435

PH: (713)626-2100 FX: (713)626-2101 andrcu'(a)ts Ialv. hcr- com

Co-Counsel Plaintiff. for TRACY DeFATTA

1 1 Houston,TX77027 12
Alexander Klein, III, Esq. B. 2000TheLyric Center Houston, TX77002
) P H : ( 7 1 36 5 0 - 1 1 1 1 FX: (713) 227-1121 larvfi corn alcxizr)thcklcin r'ur.

1 3 THE KLEIN LAW FIRM 1 4 440Louisiana 15 16 1l 18 t9 20 2l 22
zt

Co-Counselfor Plaintiff, TRACY DeFATTA

24 25 26 27 28
2s425s.r 4 IPROPOSED]ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND CASE TO STATE COURT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE. PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO CONDUCT LIMITED JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY