Erika Llamas v. Everon, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 9 ERIKA LLAMAS, 10 Case No. 25-cv-08012-RS Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER VACATING HEARING AND 12 REQUESTING FURTHER BRIEFING EVERON, LLC, 13 Defendant. 14

15 16 In this putative class action removed from state court on the basis of alleged diversity 17 jurisdiction, defendant opposes plaintiff’s pending motion to remand by arguing a reasonable 18 estimate of the named plaintiff’s purported actual damages is $64,773.36, which, when combined 19 with a reasonable estimate of the total attorney fees at stake as $198,655, easily exceeds the 20 $75,000 amount in controversy threshold for removal jurisdiction based on diversity. Neither the 21 complaint nor the record in the remand briefing establishes the number of putative class members. 22 Assuming a class of as few as twenty members (the lower end of a class size suitable for 23 certification), the attorney fees attributable to each class member would be $9,932.75. Adding that 24 number to the named plaintiff’s supposed damages of $64,773.36, would result in an amount in 25 controversy of no more than $74,706.11, an amount under the jurisdictional minimum, even 26 crediting all of defendant’s assumptions as to actual damages, and applying an extremely 27 conservative estimate of the potential size of the class. 1 December 4, 2025, is vacated. Defendant may file a supplemental brief, not to exceed 10 pages, in 2 || opposition to remand within one week of the date of this order. Plaintiff may file a supplemental 3 || reply brief, also not to exceed 10 pages, within one week thereafter. Unless otherwise ordered, the 4 || matter will then be submitted for decision without oral argument. 5 The parties’ briefing should expressly address the analysis and holding in Green v. 6 Flowers Bakeries Sales of Norcal, LLC, No. 25-CV-06679-JSC, 2025 WL 3102034, at *3 (N.D. 7 Cal. Nov. 6, 2025) (“Defendant’s cited wage and hour cases in which courts estimated future 8 || attorneys’ fees to be above $75,000 are not persuasive because they did not apportion attorneys’ 9 || fees among all class members as Ninth Circuit law requires.”). 10 11

E 13 || IT1SSO ORDERED.

2 15 Dated: November 21, 2025 , 16 VA behing RICHARD SEEBORG _ 17 Chief United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 . CASE No. 25-cv-08012-RS