# Joseph Baumann v. Chase Investment Services Corp

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · March 13, 2014 · 747 F.3d 1117

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9799102

## Case

- **Full name:** Joseph BAUMANN, Individually, and on Behalf of Other Members of the General Public Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHASE INVESTMENT SERVICES CORP., a Delaware Corporation; JPMorgan Chase Bank NA; JPMorgan Chase & Co., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 13, 2014
- **Citations:** 747 F.3d 1117; 22 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 353; 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4777; 2014 WL 983587
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Thomas
- **Judges:** Hawkins, Thomas, Hurwitz
- **Nature of suit:** Civil
- **Cited by:** 80 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9799102

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding, in an analogous context, that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and PAGA are “more dissimilar than alike” because “[a] PAGA action is at heart a civil enforcement action filed on behalf of and for the benefit of the state, not a claim for class relief’
- noting many ways in which PAGA claims were different from Rule 23 class actions and holding that PAGA claims were not sufficiently similar to class actions under Rule 23 to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction for PAGA claims under the Class Action Fairness Act but st…
- finding that an action brought pursuant to California’s Private Attorneys General Act was not a class action because it was not sufficiently similar to Rule 23
- holding that state statute authorizing class actions with civil penalties payable to both state and the class was not similar to Rule 23 for purposes of CAFA

## Opinion text

THOMAS, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the majority opinion. I write separately only to note my prior disagreement on the question of whether claims under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004, Cal. Lab.Code § 2698 et seq, can be aggregated in determining whether diversity jurisdiction exists. Urbino v. Orkin Services of California, Inc., 726 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir.2013) (Thomas, J., dissenting). Urbino is law of the circuit, of course, and binds this panel. However, if I were writing on a clean slate, I would hold otherwise as to the question of aggregation.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9799102. Public record. Not legal advice.