Anthony Reyes v. XPO Logistics, Inc.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: June 29, 2025
• Docket: 5:23-cv-00094
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California 10 Western Division 11 12 ANTHONY REYES, on behalf of CV 23-00094 TJH (SHKx) himself and all others similarly 13 situated,

14 Plaintiff, Order 15 v. 16 XPO LOGISTICS, INC., et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 The Court has considered Plaintiff Anthony Reyes’s motion to remand [dkt. # 21 29], together with the moving and opposing papers. 22 On October 17, 2023, Reyes filed this putative class action in San Bernardino 23 County Superior Court on behalf of all non-exempt employees who were employed by 24 Defendants XPO Logistics, Inc., XPO Logistics Freight, Inc., GXO Logistics, Inc., 25 and GXO Logistics Supply Chain, Inc. [collectively, “the XPO Defendants”] beginning 26 four years prior to the filing of the Complaint. 27 The following facts are as alleged in the Complaint. 28 From September, 2020, to December, 2021, Reyes was a non-exempt employee 1 of the XPO Defendants. During the class period, the XPO Defendants, allegedly, 2 violated various provisions of California’s Labor Code, including failing to provide 3 required rest and meal breaks; failing to pay minimum and overtime wages; failing to 4 reimburse for necessary work expenditures; and failing to provide itemized wage 5 statements. 6 Reyes alleged seven claims: (1) Failure to provide meal breaks, in violation of 7 Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7 and 512; (2) Failure to provide rest breaks, in violation of 8 Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7; (3) Failure to pay minimum wages and overtime, in violation 9 of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 204, 510, and 1194; (4) Failure to reimburse for expenses, in 10 violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 2802; (5)Failure to provide accurate wage statements, 11 in violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226 and 1174; (6) Failure to pay wages due upon 12 termination, in violation of in violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201, 202, and 203; and 13 (7) Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 14 17200, et seq. 15 On January 18, 2023, the XPO Defendants removed, pursuant to the Class 16 Action Fairness Act [“CAFA”], 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). The XPO Defendants asserted 17 in their notice of removal that, inter alia, the proposed class consists of approximately 18 5,279 members, and that the amount in controversy was at least $15,985,887.00, 19 based on their own damage calculations for waiting time penalties and attorneys’ fees. 20 A class action is removable under CAFA where, inter alia, the putative class consists 21 of at least 100 members and the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.00 for all 22 claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). 23 Reyes, now, moves to remand. 24 Reyes argued, here, that the XPO Defendants’ asserted amount in controversy 25 in their notice of removal was incorrect because on July 12, 2023, about six months 26 after this case was removed, two related cases – Quijano v. GXO Logistics Supply 27 Chain, Inc., CV 22-01250 TJH, and Carlos v. GXO Logistics Supply Chain, Inc., CV 28 22-00418 TJH – settled for $3,000,000.00. 1 The amount in controversy for removed cases is determined as of the date of 2 |) removal. See Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 888 F.3d 413, 414-15 (9th Cir. 3 || 2018). Later developments cannot be used to defeat jurisdiction. See Visendi v. Bank 4 || of Am., N.A., 733 F.3d 863, 868 (9th Cir. 2013). 5 6 Accordingly, 7 8 Ii is Ordvyered that the motion to remand be, and hereby is, Denied. 9 10 | Date: June 27, 2025 Lau Otella fh 12 trp J. Hattew Jr. 13 Senior Cnited States District Jusge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Order — Page 3 of 3