Summary
The United States District Court for the Central District of California grants Plaintiff Alexander Garcia’s motion to remand an employment wage-and-hour class action to Los Angeles County Superior Court. The court concludes that Defendants failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded the Class Action Fairness Act’s $5 million threshold, but denies Garcia’s request for attorneys’ fees because removal was objectively reasonable.
Holdings
- Defendants failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $5,000,000.
- Defendants' assumed 100% and alternative 20% violation rates were unsupported and facially unreasonable for purposes of proving the amount in controversy.
- Garcia was not entitled to attorney fees because defendants had an objectively reasonable basis for removal.
Questions Presented
- Whether defendants established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded CAFA's $5,000,000 jurisdictional threshold.
- Whether defendants' assumed violation rates for wage-statement and waiting-time claims were supported by the complaint or other evidence.
- Whether Garcia was entitled to attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) after remand.
Disposition
remanded
Cases Cited (9)
- Richardson v. United States, 943 F.2d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir. 1991)(followed)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014)(followed)
- Jauregui v. Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc., 28 F.4th 989, 993-96 (9th Cir. 2022)(followed)
- Ibarra v. Manheim Investments, Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197, 1199 (9th Cir. 2015)(followed)
- Singer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997)(followed)
- Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott, 936 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2019)(followed)
- Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A., 50 Cal. 4th 1389 (2010)(followed)
- Toribio v. ITT Aerospace Controls LLC, No. CV 19-5430-GW-JPRX, 2019 WL 4254935, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2019)(followed)
- Otay Land Co. v. United Enterprises Ltd., 672 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…