Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Goldberg v. CPC International, Inc.
Goldberg v. CPC Int’l, Inc., 678 F.2d 1365 (9th Cir. 1982)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1982-06-10
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- holding that attorneys' fees sought by class members cannot be aggregated for purposes of determining the amount in controversy
- rejecting defendants’ contention that potential attorneys’ fees should be attributed either to named plaintiffs only or to the class as a whole and treated as a common fund
- court raised but did not resolve propriety of removal after filing of “At-Issue Memorandum” in state court
- attorneys' fees cannot be aggregated to reach jurisdictional amount
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Goldberg v. CPC International, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Authority status
- pending
- Cited by
- 32 opinions
GOLDBERG v. CPC INTERN., INC.,678 F.2d 1365(9th Cir. 1982)
LISA P. GOLDBERG, A RESIDENT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, STATE
OF CALIFORNIA; THE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT, A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP; BLACK
KETTLE, LTD., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. CPC INTERNATIONAL,
INC., A CORPORATION; A. E. STALEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, A CORPORATION;
STANDARD BRANDS, INC., A CORPORATION; AMERICAN MAIZE-PRODUCTS COMPANY, A
CORPORATION; THE HUBINGER COMPANY, A CORPORATION; NATIONAL STARCH AND
CHEMICAL CORPORATION, A CORPORATION; PENICK FORD INC., A CORPORATION;
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., A CORPORATION; AND DOES I THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 81-4172.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted January 14, 1982.
Decided June 10, 1982.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied July 28, 1982.
Richard W. Odgers, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Before SNEED and TANG, Circuit Judges, and NIELSEN,fn*District Judge.
[2] On April 29, 1980, defendants removed the suit from state to federal court, claiming diversity of citizenship and federal question jurisdiction. Goldberg's motion to remand was granted by the district court on August 13, 1980. The court acknowledged that none of the named defendants was a California resident, while all of the plaintiffs were, but found removal improper because the Doe allegations defeated diversity.Goldberg v. CPCInternational, Inc.,495 F. Supp. 233(N.D.Cal. 1980).
[3] On December 30, 1980, Goldberg filed an "At-Issue Memorandum" in the California Superior Court, enabling the case to be placed on the active calendar. The form memorandum included the following statement by one of the attorneys for the plaintiff class:
I hereby represent to the court that all essential parties have been served with process or have appeared herein and that this case is at issue as to all such parties . . .that to my knowledge no otherparties will be served with a summons prior to thetime of trial,and I know of no further pleading to be filed.
[4] (emphasis added).
[5] As no Doe defendants had been served with process, the defendants again removed the case to federal court. Defendants (CPC) alleged that the $10,000.00 amount in controversy requirement of28 U.S.C. § 1332was satisfied, despite the small individual claims of the class members, because plaintiffs' potential attorneys' fees would exceed that amount. Goldberg's motion for remand was denied March 6, 1981, and thePage 1367order was certified for appeal pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
[6] The issue is whether the jurisdictional amount in controversy is satisfied. We find that it is not.
[7] InZahn v. International Paper Co.,414 U.S. 291, 94 S.Ct. 505, 38 L.Ed.2d 511 (1973), the Supreme Court held that in Rule 23(b)(3) class actions, separate claims must be considered separately and each class member's claim must satisfy the jurisdictional amount. If we assume that this is a class action, seeCity of Inglewood v. City of Los Angeles,451 F.2d 948, 951-952 (9th Cir. 1971), the rule expressed inZahnrequires that each class member's claim meets the jurisdictional amount.
[8] CPC tries to avoidZahn'simplications by arguing, correctly, that attorney's fees can be taken into account in determining the amount in controversy if a statute authorizes fees to a successful litigant.Missouri State Life Insurance Co. v.Jones,290 U.S. 199, 202, 54 S.Ct. 133, 78 L.Ed. 267 (1933);Stokes v. Reeves,245 F.2d 700, 702 (9th Cir. 1957). Cal.Bus. Prof. Code § 16750(a) authorizes attorney's fees.
[9] CPC next contends that the potential attorneys' fees should be attributed to the named plaintiffs only, rather thanpro ratato each class member, or, in the alternative, that the potential fees should be attributed to the class as a whole and treated as a common fund. Thus the amount in controversy requirement would be met because either the named plaintiffs will each meet the jurisdictional amount, or the entire class will.
[10] We find that acceptance of either of CPC's theories would conflict with the policy ofZahn v. International Paper Co.,in which the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the "matter in controversy" requirement must be satisfied by each member of the plaintiff class. Plaintiffs whose claims fall short cannot satisfy the requirement by aggregation of claims. CPC's theories would seriously undermine and are contrary to the rule expressed by the Supreme Court inZahn.Thus we conclude that the potential attorneys' fees do not satisfy the jurisdictional amount for this cause of action, and that there is, therefore, no federal jurisdiction. The order denying Goldberg's motion for remand is reversed.
- Honorable Leland C. Nielsen, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. ↩