De Sanctis v. Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc.

N.D. California

De Sanctis v. Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc.

DecidedJanuary 23, 2024

Docket3:23-cv-05570

StatusUnknown

This text of De Sanctis v. Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. (De Sanctis v. Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

De Sanctis v. Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DINO DE SANCTIS, Case No. 23-cv-05570-VC

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO v. REMAND

CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL Re: Dkt. No. 10 SERVICES, INC., Defendant.

The motion to remand is denied because the amount in controversy exceeds the $5 million required for jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. This ruling assumes the reader’s familiarity with the facts, the applicable legal standard, and the arguments made by the parties. Clean Harbors calculated the amount in controversy using the following assumptions: one hour of unpaid overtime for each eligible workweek, one missed meal break and one missed rest break for every five eligible work shifts, and maximum waiting-time penalties for all former employees in the class period. Taken in light of the complaint’s allegations, these assumptions are reasonable. See, e.g., Remillard v. Charles Machine Works, No. 23-cv-02639-RS, 2023 WL 4400049, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2023); see also Jauregui v. Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc., 28 F.4th 989, 993–94, 993 n.5 (9th Cir. 2022). They are not the sort of aggressive assumptions that typically require further evidentiary support. Compare Harris v. KM Industrial, Inc., 980 F.3d 694, 701–02 (9th Cir. 2020); see also, e.g., Rutledge v. Healthport Technologies, LLC, No. 16-cv-06920-VC, 2017 WL 728375, at *1–2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2017); Sanchez v. WaveDivision Holdings, LLC, No. 18-cv-02439-VC, 2018 WL 33435839, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2018). For instance, Clean Harbors considered only workweeks long enough to qualify for overtime pay and work shifts long enough to qualify for meal and rest breaks. These conservative estimates still produced an amount in controversy that more than doubles CAFA’s $5 million requirement. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2024 : = VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DINO DE SANCTIS, Case No. 23-cv-05570-VC

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO v. REMAND

CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL Re: Dkt. No. 10 SERVICES, INC., Defendant.

The motion to remand is denied because the amount in controversy exceeds the $5 million required for jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. This ruling assumes the reader’s familiarity with the facts, the applicable legal standard, and the arguments made by the parties. Clean Harbors calculated the amount in controversy using the following assumptions: one hour of unpaid overtime for each eligible workweek, one missed meal break and one missed rest break for every five eligible work shifts, and maximum waiting-time penalties for all former employees in the class period. Taken in light of the complaint’s allegations, these assumptions are reasonable. See, e.g., Remillard v. Charles Machine Works, No. 23-cv-02639-RS, 2023 WL 4400049, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2023); see also Jauregui v. Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc., 28 F.4th 989, 993–94, 993 n.5 (9th Cir. 2022). They are not the sort of aggressive assumptions that typically require further evidentiary support. Compare Harris v. KM Industrial, Inc., 980 F.3d 694, 701–02 (9th Cir. 2020); see also, e.g., Rutledge v. Healthport Technologies, LLC, No. 16-cv-06920-VC, 2017 WL 728375, at *1–2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2017); Sanchez v. WaveDivision Holdings, LLC, No. 18-cv-02439-VC, 2018 WL 33435839, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2018). For instance, Clean Harbors considered only workweeks long enough to qualify for overtime pay and work shifts long enough to qualify for meal and rest breaks. These conservative estimates still produced an amount in controversy that more than doubles CAFA’s $5 million requirement. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2024 : = VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

De Sanctis v. Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-sanctis-v-clean-harbors-environmental-services-inc-cand-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack