Continuing Jurisdiction - You Can't Always Get What You Want, Or What You Need....

Taragan v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No: C 09-03660 SBA, 2011 WL 941132 (N.D. Cal. March 16, 2011).

After dismissal of class claims, it seems that both parties wanted to stay in federal court to decide the claims of the individual plaintiffs, but you can't always get what you want, or even what you need. The court said no supplemental jurisdiction, go forth and file elsewhere, if you want.

In this case, the Northern District of California held that the court has no continuing jurisdiction under CAFA with respect to individual state law causes of action when CAFA-based claims are no longer pending.

The plaintiffs, Helen Taragan, along with Frances Jeanette Taylor and Clarence Taylor, filed a complaint in the district court for damages and equitable relief, alleging six claims for relief against Nissan North America, Inc., and Nissan Motor Company, Ltd. The plaintiffs brought four class claims -- (1) breach of express warranty; (2) breach of implied warranty; (3) violations of State Consumer Protection Statutes; and (4) unjust enrichment, all pursuant to CAFA on the theory that Nissan violated the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 114 because the automobile key fob can be removed from the vehicle while it is turned off, even when the transmission gear is not in "park."

In addition to the class claims, the complaint alleged two individual state law claims brought solely on behalf of the named plaintiffs, who are residents of Louisiana. The named plaintiffs' individual claims were a design defect/failure to warn products liability claim based on Louisiana law, and a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, which arose from an accident involving their Nissan Murano in Louisiana in August 2008. The Complaint alleged that the court had supplemental jurisdiction over these individual state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Subsequently, the court dismissed all the four class claims, without leave to amend. As a result, the court directed the parties to brief the issue of whether it had original jurisdiction over the remaining individual state law claims brought by the named plaintiffs, and if not, whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Both parties timely filed memoranda in response to the court's order. Specifically, Nissan, concurring with the plaintiffs, asserted that the parties were diverse and that more than $75,000 in controversy was at issue; thus, the court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28...