UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Daniel Rodas, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:21-cv-07526-VAP-(KESx) v. Order DENYING The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 17) Company et al., Defendants.
Plaintiff Daniel Rodas (“Rodas”) filed a Motion to Remand (“Motion”) on October 20, 2021. (Doc. No. 17.) Defendant The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (“Goodyear”) opposed the Motion on November 8, 2021, (Doc. No. 18), and Rodas replied on November 15, 2021 (Doc. No. 19.) After considering all the papers filed in support of, and in opposition to the Motion, the Court deems this matter appropriate for resolution without a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 7–15. The Court DENIES the Motion to Remand.
I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Rodas filed this putative class action in Los Angeles Superior Court against Defendant Goodyear, alleging violations of various California Labor Code sections. (See “Compl.,” Doc. No. 1-1.) The Complaint alleges that Defendant failed to pay overtime wages, failed to provide accurate 1 wage statements, and engaged in unlawful business practices. (Compl. ¶¶ 30-46.) The Complaint also seeks waiting time penalties, inaccurate wage penalties, and attorneys’ fees for such violations. (Compl. ¶¶ 35-41.). On September 20, 2021, Goodyear timely removed the Complaint to this Court based on jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). (Doc. No. 1.) Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 et seq.; Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979) (“The removal jurisdiction of the federal courts is derived entirely from the statutory authorization of Congress”) (citations omitted). Defendants may remove a case to federal court when a case originally filed in state court presents a federal question or is between citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a)-(b), 1446, 1453. Only those state court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Although CAFA gives district courts diversity jurisdiction to hear certain class actions, defendants must show that “any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant” (minimum diversity); the number of members of the proposed plaintiff class exceeds 100 in the aggregate (numerosity); and “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs” (amount in controversy). 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d); see also Luther v. Countrywide Home 2 Loans Servicing LP, 533 F.3d 1031, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 2008); Serrano v. 180 Connect, Inc., 478 F.3d 1018, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2007). A defendant’s notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Evidence establishing the amount is required by § 1446(c)(2)(B) only when the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the defendant’s allegation. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 88-89 (2014). When the removed complaint fails to allege a specific amount in controversy, or when the complaint alleges an amount in controversy less than the jurisdictional threshold, the removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy is greater than $5,000,000. Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Servs., No. 13-56149, 2013 WL 4516757, at *6-7 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2013) (citing Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345, 1348 (2013)); Lewis v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 400 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). In determining the amount in controversy, the Court considers not only the facts alleged in the complaint, taken as true for purposes of calculating the amount, but also “summary-judgment-type evidence relevant to the amount in controversy.” Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997). “[T]he amount in controversy is simply an estimate of the total amount in dispute, not a prospective assessment of defendant’s liability.” Lewis, 627 F.3d at 400. 3 Rodas challenges removal only on the basis Goodyear failed to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement under CAFA. (Doc. No. 17 at 9.) According to Rodas, Goodyear miscalculates the inaccurate wage statements penalties and the attorneys’ fees.1 (Id. at 8-12.) In support of this contention, Rodas cites Harris v. KM Indus., Inc., 980 F.3d 694 (9th Cir. 2020), which held that defendant “failed to produce any proof that the members of the Hourly Employee Class and the two subclasses were the same and that they all worked shifts long enough to qualify for meal and rest period, and this failure rendered [defendant’s] assumption unsupported and unreasonable.” (Doc. No. 17 at 11-12.) Rodas’s arguments are unavailing. “CAFA’s requirements are to be tested by consideration of real evidence and the reality of what is at stake in the litigation, using reasonable assumptions underlying the defendant’s theory of damages exposure.” Ibarra v. Manheim Inv., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1198 (9th Cir. 2015). In other words, “a defendant cannot establish removal jurisdiction by mere speculation and conjecture, with unreasonable assumptions.” Id. at 1197. Reasonable assumptions are reasonable deductions, inferences or extrapolations drawn from specific factual allegations, supportable by evidence (if challenged by the plaintiff or the court). Id. (citation omitted); see also Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 168 (2d Cir. 2007) (“An inference is not a suspicion or a guess. It is a reasoned, logical decision to conclude that a disputed fact exists on the basis of 1 Rodas does not challenge Goodyear’s waiting time penalties’ calculation of $1,926,892,80. 4 another fact that is known to exist.”). For example, a declaration from a company employee is “credible evidence to establish CAFA removal” jurisdiction with respect to the amount in controversy where that employee’s testimony cites to “statistics gleaned from defendant’s records, such as the number of class members” and explains “where she obtained her figures and how her estimates and averages were calculated.” Alvarez v. Office Depot, Inc., No. 17-7220, 2017 WL 5952181, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2017) (collecting cases). Goodyear here base their calculations on Susan K. Buckley’s declaration, Goodyear’s Payroll Operations Manager, and reports generated in the ordinary course of business. (“Buckley Decl.,” Doc. No. 18-2.); see also Alvarez, 2017 WL 5952181, at *2. Buckley states that from August 4, 2020 to September 2, 2021, the alleged violation period, “there were approximately at least 919 hourly, non-exempt employees employed by [Goodyear] in California who earned overtime
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Daniel Rodas, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:21-cv-07526-VAP-(KESx) v. Order DENYING The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 17) Company et al., Defendants.
Plaintiff Daniel Rodas (“Rodas”) filed a Motion to Remand (“Motion”) on October 20, 2021. (Doc. No. 17.) Defendant The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (“Goodyear”) opposed the Motion on November 8, 2021, (Doc. No. 18), and Rodas replied on November 15, 2021 (Doc. No. 19.) After considering all the papers filed in support of, and in opposition to the Motion, the Court deems this matter appropriate for resolution without a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 7–15. The Court DENIES the Motion to Remand.
I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Rodas filed this putative class action in Los Angeles Superior Court against Defendant Goodyear, alleging violations of various California Labor Code sections. (See “Compl.,” Doc. No. 1-1.) The Complaint alleges that Defendant failed to pay overtime wages, failed to provide accurate 1 wage statements, and engaged in unlawful business practices. (Compl. ¶¶ 30-46.) The Complaint also seeks waiting time penalties, inaccurate wage penalties, and attorneys’ fees for such violations. (Compl. ¶¶ 35-41.). On September 20, 2021, Goodyear timely removed the Complaint to this Court based on jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). (Doc. No. 1.) Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 et seq.; Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979) (“The removal jurisdiction of the federal courts is derived entirely from the statutory authorization of Congress”) (citations omitted). Defendants may remove a case to federal court when a case originally filed in state court presents a federal question or is between citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a)-(b), 1446, 1453. Only those state court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Although CAFA gives district courts diversity jurisdiction to hear certain class actions, defendants must show that “any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant” (minimum diversity); the number of members of the proposed plaintiff class exceeds 100 in the aggregate (numerosity); and “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs” (amount in controversy). 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d); see also Luther v. Countrywide Home 2 Loans Servicing LP, 533 F.3d 1031, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 2008); Serrano v. 180 Connect, Inc., 478 F.3d 1018, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2007). A defendant’s notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Evidence establishing the amount is required by § 1446(c)(2)(B) only when the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the defendant’s allegation. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 88-89 (2014). When the removed complaint fails to allege a specific amount in controversy, or when the complaint alleges an amount in controversy less than the jurisdictional threshold, the removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy is greater than $5,000,000. Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Servs., No. 13-56149, 2013 WL 4516757, at *6-7 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2013) (citing Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345, 1348 (2013)); Lewis v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 400 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). In determining the amount in controversy, the Court considers not only the facts alleged in the complaint, taken as true for purposes of calculating the amount, but also “summary-judgment-type evidence relevant to the amount in controversy.” Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997). “[T]he amount in controversy is simply an estimate of the total amount in dispute, not a prospective assessment of defendant’s liability.” Lewis, 627 F.3d at 400. 3 Rodas challenges removal only on the basis Goodyear failed to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement under CAFA. (Doc. No. 17 at 9.) According to Rodas, Goodyear miscalculates the inaccurate wage statements penalties and the attorneys’ fees.1 (Id. at 8-12.) In support of this contention, Rodas cites Harris v. KM Indus., Inc., 980 F.3d 694 (9th Cir. 2020), which held that defendant “failed to produce any proof that the members of the Hourly Employee Class and the two subclasses were the same and that they all worked shifts long enough to qualify for meal and rest period, and this failure rendered [defendant’s] assumption unsupported and unreasonable.” (Doc. No. 17 at 11-12.) Rodas’s arguments are unavailing. “CAFA’s requirements are to be tested by consideration of real evidence and the reality of what is at stake in the litigation, using reasonable assumptions underlying the defendant’s theory of damages exposure.” Ibarra v. Manheim Inv., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1198 (9th Cir. 2015). In other words, “a defendant cannot establish removal jurisdiction by mere speculation and conjecture, with unreasonable assumptions.” Id. at 1197. Reasonable assumptions are reasonable deductions, inferences or extrapolations drawn from specific factual allegations, supportable by evidence (if challenged by the plaintiff or the court). Id. (citation omitted); see also Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 168 (2d Cir. 2007) (“An inference is not a suspicion or a guess. It is a reasoned, logical decision to conclude that a disputed fact exists on the basis of 1 Rodas does not challenge Goodyear’s waiting time penalties’ calculation of $1,926,892,80. 4 another fact that is known to exist.”). For example, a declaration from a company employee is “credible evidence to establish CAFA removal” jurisdiction with respect to the amount in controversy where that employee’s testimony cites to “statistics gleaned from defendant’s records, such as the number of class members” and explains “where she obtained her figures and how her estimates and averages were calculated.” Alvarez v. Office Depot, Inc., No. 17-7220, 2017 WL 5952181, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2017) (collecting cases). Goodyear here base their calculations on Susan K. Buckley’s declaration, Goodyear’s Payroll Operations Manager, and reports generated in the ordinary course of business. (“Buckley Decl.,” Doc. No. 18-2.); see also Alvarez, 2017 WL 5952181, at *2. Buckley states that from August 4, 2020 to September 2, 2021, the alleged violation period, “there were approximately at least 919 hourly, non-exempt employees employed by [Goodyear] in California who earned overtime” and who worked “approximately 36,137 pay periods” resulting in an average of 39 pay periods per employee. (Buckley Decl. ¶¶ 7-9; Doc. No. 18 at 10.) Buckley then determined the wage statements violation rate of 91.49% based on Rodas’s pay stubs. (Buckley Decl. ¶ 17) (“[Rodas] received 47 pay stubs between August 4, 2020 to August 4, 2021 for work conducted over the course of his employment with Defendant. Of those pay stubs, 43 or 91.49% of his ‘view mode’ pay stubs, included the notation ‘Details Not Displayed.’”); cf. Harvey v. Advisors Mortg. Grp., LLC, No. 21-1048, 2021 WL 4521065, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2021) (“Given Defendant’s failure to introduce any evidence supporting a 95% violation rate, the Court concludes 5 that Defendant has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that $4,000 is at issue for Plaintiff’s claim for failure to provide accurate wage statements.”). Applying this 91.49% violation rate to the average of 39 pay periods per employee yields 35.68 pay periods per employee. (Doc. No. 18 at 11-12). Goodyear correctly asserts that “at a 91.49% violation rate, the resulting average penalties per employee is $3,550 ([$50 * 1] + [$100 * 35]). Multiplying that number by the 919 employees at issue equals $3,262,450.00.” (Id.) Accordingly, the estimates from Goodyear’s payroll manager are sufficient evidence to establish a reasonable amount in controversy. See Andrade v. Beacon Sales Acquisition, Inc., No. 19- 2019 WL 4855997, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2019) (declaration estimating that defendants “employed approximately 939 non-exempt employees” who worked “50,720 weeks” at an “average hourly rate [of] $17.98” sufficient to demonstrate amount in controversy); Marano v. Liberty Mut. Grp., Inc., No. 20-02215, 2021 WL 129930, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2021) (“Although courts have assumed 100% violation rates in other cases involving sweeping allegations, Defendant makes limited and reasonable assumptions for these claims.”) Moreover, Rodas’s reliance on Harris is misplaced. The Harris court found improper the use of the same number of employees to make calculations for all three classes identified in the complaint because defendant provided no evidence that all three classes were the same. 980 F.3d at 701-02. Goodyear here, however, bases its calculation on only one subclass of employees—those non-exempt employees who worked overtime and whose pay stubs allegedly violated California law. (Doc. No. 6 | | 10.) Goodyear’s calculation thus is a conservative and reasonable estimate of the wage statements violation amount. 3 Accordingly, the uncontested waiting time penalties amount of 5 $1,926,892,80.00, and the inaccurate wage statements penalties of 6 $3,262,450.00 exceed the $5,000,000 threshold under CAFA.? 7 9 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Rodas’s Motion to Remand. The November 29, 2021, hearing is vacated. ITIS SO ORDERED. 1) Dated: 11/24/21 Vip A, Pheu ‘ A Virginia A. Phillips United States District Judge ? The Court need not address the attorneys’ fees calculation or overtime claims calculation because the penalties described above satisfy the juris- dictional amount.