Case 3:19-cv-00469-JSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/19 Page 1 of 10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Gail Lin Chung, Cal St. Bar. No. 212334
Jack A. Raisner1
René S. Roupinian2
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
One California Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 638-8800
Facsimile: (415) 638-8810

Email: gl@outtengolden.com
Email: rsr@outtengolden.com
Email: jar@outtengolden.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Joshua James Eaton Philips, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated

9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10
11
12
13

Joshua James Eaton Philips, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated,

14
15
16

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. __________________

v.
Munchery, Inc.,

17

Defendant.

18
19

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR
(1) VIOLATION OF WARN ACT 29 U.S.C. § 2101, ET SEQ.
AND (2) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 1400 ET. SEQ.

20
21

Plaintiff Joshua James Eaton Philips (“Plaintiff”) alleges on his own behalf and the

22
23

putative class of those similarly situated as follows:

24
25
26
27
28

1 and 2

Not admitted to the Bar of the U.S. District Court N.D. Calif. Applications for admission
pro hac vice to be filed.

 Case 3:19-cv-00469-JSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/19 Page 2 of 10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.

Until its sudden demise on January 21, 2019, Defendant operated an online food

delivery service based in San Francisco. Plaintiff worked for Defendant until January 21, 2019,
when Defendant abruptly ceased operations. Plaintiff, along with an estimated 250 other
employees, were terminated without any written notice.
2.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and the other similarly situated

8

former employees who worked for Defendant and who were terminated without cause, as part of,

9

or as the result of, the mass layoff or plant closing ordered by Defendant on or about January 21,

10
11

2019 and within thirty (30) days of that date, and who were not provided 60 days’ advance
written notice of their terminations by Defendant, as required by the Worker Adjustment and

12
13
14
15
16

Retraining Notification Act (“WARN Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq., and the California Labor
Code § 1400 et. seq. (“CAL-WARN Act”).
3.

Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees seek to recover 60 days’ wages

benefits, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2104, from Defendant.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4.

§ 2104(a)(5).
5.

Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(5).

6.

The Court has jurisdiction over Defendant because they did business in this

District and a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim occurred in this District.

24
25

This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 29 U.S.C.

THE PARTIES
Plaintiff

26
27
28
-2-

COMPLAINT

 Case 3:19-cv-00469-JSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/19 Page 3 of 10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

7.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant and worked at or reported to the Defendant’s

facility located at 200 Shaw Road, South San Francisco 94080 (the “Facility”) until his
termination on or about January 21, 2019.
8.

Plaintiff was terminated without cause.

9.

Plaintiff was terminated without 60 days’ written notice.

10.

On information and belief, an estimated 250 similarly situated former employees

8

who worked at the Facility were also terminated on or about January 21, 2019 without cause and

9

without 60 days’ written notice.

10
11

Defendant
11.

Upon information and belief and at all relevant times, Defendant is a corporation

12
13
14
15
16

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with headquarters in San
Francisco.
12.

Until on or about January 21, 2019, Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees

were employed by Defendant and worked at or reported to the Facility.

17
18
19
20
21

WARN ACT CLASS ALLEGATIONS
13.

Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated

former employees of Defendant who worked at or reported to the Facility and were terminated
without cause beginning on or about January 21, 2019 and within 30 days of that date, or as the

22

reasonably foreseeable consequence of the mass layoff or plant closing ordered by Defendant on

23

that date, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(5).

24
25
26
27
28

14.

The persons in the Class identified above (“Class Members”) are so numerous that

joinder of all members is impracticable.

Although the precise number of such persons is

unknown, the facts on which the calculation of that number can be based are presently within the
sole control of Defendant.

-3-

COMPLAINT

 Case 3:19-cv-00469-JSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/19 Page 4 of 10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

15.

On information and belief, the identity of the members of the class and the recent

residence address of each of the Class Members is contained in the books and records of
Defendant.
16.

On information and belief, the rate of pay and benefits that were being paid by

Defendant to each Class Member at the time of his/her termination is contained in the books and
records of the Defendant.
17.

There are questions of law and fact common to the Class Members that

predominate over any questions affecting individual members.
18.

There are questions of law and fact common to the Class Members that

predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of the Class, including but

12
13

not limited to:

14
15

(a)

whether the Class Members were employees of the Defendant who worked
at or reported to the Facility;

(b)

whether Defendant terminated the employment of the Class Members
without cause on their part and without giving them 60 days’ advance
written notice; and

(c)

whether Defendant paid the Class members 60 days’ wages and benefits as
required by the WARN Act.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

19.

Plaintiff’s claim is typical of those of the WARN Class. Plaintiff, like other

WARN Class members, worked at or reported to the Facility and was terminated without cause
on or about January 21, 2019, due to the mass layoff and/or plant closing ordered by Defendant.
20.

Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the WARN Class.

24

Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experience in complex class actions, including the

25

WARN Act and employment litigation.

26
27

21.

Class certification of these claims is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)

because questions of law and fact common to the WARN Class predominate over any questions

28
-4-

COMPLAINT

 Case 3:19-cv-00469-JSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/19 Page 5 of 10

1

affecting only individual members of the WARN Class, and because a class action is superior to

2

other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation – particularly in

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

the context of WARN Act litigation, where individual plaintiffs may lack the financial resources
to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit in federal court against a corporate defendant, and damages
suffered by individual WARN Class members are small compared to the expense and burden of
individual prosecution of this litigation.
22.

Concentrating all the potential litigation concerning the WARN Act rights of the

members of the Class in this Court will obviate the need for unduly duplicative litigation that
might result in inconsistent judgments, will conserve the judicial resources and the resources of
the parties and is the most efficient means of resolving the WARN Act rights of all the members

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

of the Class.
23.

Plaintiff intends to send notice to all members of the WARN Class to the extent

required by Rule 23.
24.

A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient

adjudication of this controversy – particularly in the context of WARN Act litigation, where
individual plaintiffs may lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit in federal
court against corporate Defendant.
CALIFORNIA WARN CLASS ALLEGATIONS, Cal. Labor Code § 1401
25.

Plaintiff brings the Second Claim for Relief for violation of Labor Code § 1401 on

23

behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated persons pursuant to Labor Code § 1404 and

24

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a) and (b), who worked at or reported to Defendant’s

25

Facility and were terminated without cause beginning on or about January 21, 2019 (the “CAL

26

WARN Class”)

27
28
-5-

COMPLAINT

 Case 3:19-cv-00469-JSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/19 Page 6 of 10

1
2
3
4
5
6

26.

The persons in the CAL WARN Class identified above (“CAL WARN Class

Members”) are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Although the precise
number of such persons is unknown, the facts on which the calculation of that number can be
based are presently within the sole control of Defendant.
27.

On information and belief, the identity of the members of the class and the recent

7

residence address of each of the CAL WARN Class Members is contained in the books and

8

records of Defendant.

9
10
11

28.

On information and belief, the rate of pay and benefits that were being paid by

Defendant to each CAL WARN Class Member at the time of his/her termination is contained in
the books and records of Defendant.

12
13
14

29.

including, but not limited to, the following:

15
16

19
20

23

whether the members of the CAL WARN Class were employees of the

(b)

whether Defendant unlawfully terminated the employment of the members

of the CAL WARN Class without cause on their part and without giving them 60 days advance
written notice in violation of the CAL WARN Act; and
(c)

21
22

(a)
Defendant;

17
18

Common questions of law and fact exist as to members of the CAL WARN Class,

whether Defendant unlawfully failed to pay the CAL WARN Class

members 60 days wages and benefits as required by the CAL WARN Act.
30.

The California Class Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the CAL WARN

24

Class. The California Class Plaintiff, like other WARN Class members, worked at or reported to

25

the Facility and was terminated on or about January 21, 2019, due to the terminations ordered by

26

Defendant.

27
28
-6-

COMPLAINT

 Case 3:19-cv-00469-JSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/19 Page 7 of 10

1
2
3
4
5
6

31.

The California Class Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the

CAL WARN Class.

The California Class Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and

experienced in complex class actions on behalf of employees, including the CAL WARN Act, the
federal WARN Act, other similar state laws, and employment litigation.
32.

Class certification of these Claims is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)

7

because questions of law and fact common to the CAL WARN Class predominate over any

8

questions affecting only individual members of the CAL WARN Class, and because a class action

9

superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation –

10
11

particularly in the context of CAL WARN Class Act litigation, where individual plaintiffs may
lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit in federal court against a corporate

12
13
14
15

defendant, and damages suffered by individual CAL WARN Class members are small compared
to the expense and burden of individual prosecution of this litigation.
33.

Concentrating all the potential litigation concerning the CAL WARN Act rights of

16

the members of the Class in this Court will obviate the need for unduly duplicative litigation that

17

might result in inconsistent judgments, will conserve the judicial resources and the resources of

18
19
20
21
22

the parties and is the most efficient means of resolving the CAL WARN Act rights of all the
members of the Class.
34.

The California Class Plaintiff intends to send notice to all members of the CAL

WARN Class to the extent required by Rule 23.

23

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

24

Federal WARN Act, U.S.C. § 2101 et seq.

25
26

35.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding

paragraphs.

27
28
-7-

COMPLAINT

 Case 3:19-cv-00469-JSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/19 Page 8 of 10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

36.

At all relevant times, Defendant employed more than 100 employees who in the

aggregate worked at least 4,000 hours per week, exclusive of hours of overtime, within the United
States.
37.

At all relevant times, Defendant was an “employer,” as that term is defined in 29

U.S.C. § 2101 (a)(1) and 20 C.F.R. § 639(a).
38.

At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the other similarly situated former employees

were employees of Defendant as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. §2101.
39.

On or about January 21, 2019, and within 30 days thereafter, Defendant ordered a

mass layoff and/or plant closing at the Facility, as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 210l(a)(2).
40.

The mass layoff and/or plant closing at the Facility resulted in “employment

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

losses,” as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 2101(a)(2) for at least fifty of Defendant’s
employees as well as more than 33% of Defendant’s workforce at the Facility, excluding “parttime employees,” as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 2l01(a)(8).
41.

Plaintiff and the Class Members were terminated by Defendant without cause on

their part, as part of or as the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the mass layoff or plant
closing ordered by Defendant at the Facility.
42.

Plaintiff and the Class Members are “affected employees” of Defendant, within the

meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 210l(a)(5).
43.

Defendant was required by the WARN Act to give Plaintiff and the Class

Members at least 60 days’ advance written notice of their terminations.
44.

Defendant failed to give Plaintiff and the Class members written notice that

complied with the requirements of the WARN Act.
45.

The Plaintiff is, and each of the Class Members are, “aggrieved employees” of the

Defendant as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 2104 (a)(7).

-8-

COMPLAINT

 Case 3:19-cv-00469-JSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/19 Page 9 of 10

1
2
3
4
5
6

46.

wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay and accrued vacation for 60 days
following their respective terminations and failed to make the pension and 401(k) contributions
and provide employee benefits under ERISA, other than health insurance, for 60 days from and
after the dates of their respective terminations.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

7
8
9
10

Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and each of the Class Members their respective

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
persons, prays for the following relief as against Defendant:
A.

11

Certification that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) and (b), Plaintiff and the other
similarly situated former employees constitute a single class;

12
13
14
15

B.

Designation of the Plaintiff as Class Representative;

C.

Appointment of the undersigned attorneys as Class Counsel;

D.

A judgment in favor of Plaintiff and each of the “affected employees” equal to the

16

sum of: their unpaid wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay,

17

accrued vacation pay, pension and 401(k) contributions and other ERISA benefits,

18

for 60 days, that would have been covered and paid under the then-applicable

19

employee benefit plans had that coverage continued for that period, all determined

20

in accordance with the WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(1)(4) and the California

21

Labor Code § 1402(a);

22
23

E.

Interest as allowed by law on the amounts owed under the preceding paragraph;

24

F.

Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and the costs and disbursements that the

25

Plaintiff incurred in prosecuting this action, as authorized by the WARN Act, 29

26
27
28

U.S.C. § 2104(a)(6); and
G.

Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

-9-

COMPLAINT

 Case 3:19-cv-00469-JSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/19 Page 10 of 10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

DATED: January 25, 2019

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ _Gail Lin Chung___________________
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
Gail Lin Chung
Jack A. Raisner
René S. Roupinian
One California Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 638-8800
Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
Email: gl@outtengolden.com
Email: rsr@outtengolden.com
Email: jar@outtengolden.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the other similarly
situated former employees

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-10-

COMPLAINT

 Case 3:19-cv-00469-JSC Document 1-1 Filed 01/25/19 Page 1 of 2

JS-CAND 44 (Rev. 06/17)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law,
except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of
Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

Joshua James Eaton Philips, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

Munchery, Inc.,
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

Alameda County

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE:

(c)

IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

Attorneys (If Known)

Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

Gail Lin Chung, Cal St. Bar. No. 212334; Outten & Golden LLP
San Francisco, California 94111; (415) 638-8800

II.

BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
1

U.S. Government Plaintiff

3

2

U.S. Government Defendant

4

IV.

NATURE OF SUIT

CONTRACT
110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of
Overpayment Of
Veteran’s Benefits
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans (Excludes
Veterans)
153 Recovery of
Overpayment
of Veteran’s Benefits
160 Stockholders’ Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise
REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property

V.
1

VI.

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only)

Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)

PTF
1

Citizen of This State

Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

DEF
1

Citizen of Another State

2

2

Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country

3

3

and One Box for Defendant)
PTF
Incorporated or Principal Place
4
of Business In This State
Incorporated and Principal Place
5
of Business In Another State
Foreign Nation
6

DEF
4
5
6

(Place an “X” in One Box Only)
TORTS

PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product Liability
320 Assault, Libel & Slander
330 Federal Employers’
Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle Product
Liability
360 Other Personal Injury
362 Personal Injury -Medical
Malpractice

PERSONAL INJURY
365 Personal Injury – Product
Liability
367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical Personal
Injury Product Liability
368 Asbestos Personal Injury
Product Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
370 Other Fraud
371 Truth in Lending
380 Other Personal Property
Damage
385 Property Damage Product
Liability
PRISONER PETITIONS

CIVIL RIGHTS
440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
445 Amer. w/Disabilities–
Employment
446 Amer. w/Disabilities–Other
448 Education

HABEAS CORPUS
463 Alien Detainee
510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
530 General
535 Death Penalty

FORFEITURE/PENALTY
625 Drug Related Seizure of
Property 21 USC § 881
690 Other
LABOR

BANKRUPTCY
422 Appeal 28 USC § 158
423 Withdrawal 28 USC
§ 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS

710 Fair Labor Standards Act
720 Labor/Management
Relations
740 Railway Labor Act
751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act
IMMIGRATION
462 Naturalization
Application
465 Other Immigration
Actions

820 Copyrights
830 Patent
835 Patent─Abbreviated New
Drug Application
840 Trademark
SOCIAL SECURITY
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or
Defendant)
871 IRS–Third Party 26 USC
§ 7609

OTHER
540 Mandamus & Other
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee–
Conditions of
Confinement

OTHER STATUTES
375 False Claims Act
376 Qui Tam (31 USC
§ 3729(a))
400 State Reapportionment
410 Antitrust
430 Banks and Banking
450 Commerce
460 Deportation
470 Racketeer Influenced &
Corrupt Organizations
480 Consumer Credit
490 Cable/Sat TV
850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
890 Other Statutory Actions
891 Agricultural Acts
893 Environmental Matters
895 Freedom of Information
Act
896 Arbitration
899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
950 Constitutionality of State
Statutes

ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
Original
Proceeding

CAUSE OF
ACTION

2

3

Removed from
State Court

Remanded from
Appellate Court

4

Reinstated or
Reopened

5 Transferred from
Another District (specify)

6

Multidistrict
Litigation–Transfer

8 Multidistrict
Litigation–Direct File

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (ʼn WARN ActŊ ), 29 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq.; and CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 1400 ET. SEQ.

Brief description of cause:

Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees seek to recover damages for terminations without 60 days notice.

VII.

REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT:

✔

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
UNDER RULE 23, Fed. R. Civ. P.

VIII. RELATED CASE(S),
IF ANY (See instructions):

DEMAND $

JUDGE

DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil Local Rule 3-2)
(Place an “X” in One Box Only)
SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
JURY DEMAND:
Yes
No
DOCKET NUMBER

IX.

DATE 01/25/2019

SAN JOSE

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

Gail Lin Chung

EUREKA-MCKINLEYVILLE

 JS-CAND 44 (rev. 07/16)

Case 3:19-cv-00469-JSC Document 1-1 Filed 01/25/19 Page 2 of 2

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS-CAND 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet. The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and
service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial
Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is
submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I. a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the “defendant” is the location of the tract of land involved.)
c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section “(see attachment).”
II.

Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires that jurisdictions be shown in
pleadings. Place an “X” in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
(1) United States plaintiff. Jurisdiction based on 28 USC §§ 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
(2) United States defendant. When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an “X” in this box.
(3) Federal question. This refers to suits under 28 USC § 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code
takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
(4) Diversity of citizenship. This refers to suits under 28 USC § 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)

III.

Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS-CAND 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above.
Mark this section for each principal party.

IV.

Nature of Suit. Place an “X” in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is
sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than
one nature of suit, select the most definitive.

V.

Origin. Place an “X” in one of the six boxes.
(1) Original Proceedings. Cases originating in the United States district courts.
(2) Removed from State Court. Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 USC § 1441. When the
petition for removal is granted, check this box.
(3) Remanded from Appellate Court. Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
(4) Reinstated or Reopened. Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
(5) Transferred from Another District. For cases transferred under Title 28 USC § 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
(6) Multidistrict Litigation Transfer. Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 USC
§ 1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.
(8) Multidistrict Litigation Direct File. Check this box when a multidistrict litigation case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
Please note that there is no Origin Code 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in statute.

VI.

Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC § 553. Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service.

VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an “X” in this box if you are filing a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS-CAND 44 is used to identify related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
IX.

Divisional Assignment. If the Nature of Suit is under Property Rights or Prisoner Petitions or the matter is a Securities Class Action, leave this
section blank. For all other cases, identify the divisional venue according to Civil Local Rule 3-2: “the county in which a substantial part of the
events or omissions which give rise to the claim occurred or in which a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated.”

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.