Henry Ramos v. Moog, Inc.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: February 27, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-10775
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 HENRY RAMOS, and individual, on behalf of himself and all others Case No. CV 19-10775-AB (SSx) 11 similarly situated, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 12 MOTION FOR REMAND Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14

15 MOOG Inc.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 16

17 Defendants. 18 Plaintiff Henry Ramos (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in Los Angeles County 19 Superior Court on November 21, 2019, alleging that Defendants MOOG Inc. and 20 DOES 1 through 100 (collectively, “Defendants”) violated multiple California labor 21 laws. (Complaint (“Compl.”), Dkt. No. 1-1 at Ex. A.)) On December 20, 2019, 22 Defendants removed the case to this Court. (See Notice of Removal “NOR,” Dkt. No. 23 1.) On January 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Remand. (“Motion,” 24 Dkt. No. 10.) Defendants filed an Opposition (“Opp’n,” Dkt. No. 11), and Plaintiff 25 filed a Reply. (“Reply,” Dkt. No. 12.) Finding this matter appropriate for resolution 26 without oral argument, the Court vacated the hearing set for February 14, 2020 27 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78 and Local Rule 7–15. (Dkt. No. 13). 28 For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion. 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff is a citizen of California who was employed by Defendants as a non- 3 exempt hourly employee at its facility in Torrance, California. (Compl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff 4 claims that Defendants “established pay policies which do not compensate [its] 5 employees for the time they actually worked and also failed to provide the legally 6 mandated paid rest breaks and as a result Defendants have failed to pay all wages 7 due[.]” (Compl. ¶ 8.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants failed to pay 8 overtime wages at the legal overtime pay rate; failed to provide paid rest periods; 9 failed to timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements; violated Labor Code 10 § 203; and conducted unfair business practices.” (Id.) 11 Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts seven causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay Overtime 12 Wages (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 204, 218, 510(a), 1194, 1198); (2) Failure to Pay Minimum 13 Wages (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1197); (3) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages at the 14 Legal Overtime Pay Rate; (4) Failure to Provide Paid Rest Periods (Cal. Lab. Code 15 §§226.7, 516); (5) Failure to Timely Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements 16 (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226); (6) Violation of Labor Code Sec. 203; and (7) Unfair 17 Business Practices (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.). (Compl. at 1; see also 18 id. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff brings these claims on behalf of a putative class, (id. ¶ 1), and his 19 Complaint identifies seven sub-classes: (1) the Overtime Class, (2) the Minimum 20 Wage Class, (3) the Overtime Rate Class, (4) the Rest Period Class, (5) the Wage 21 Statement Class, (6) the LC203 Class, and (7) the 17200 Class. (See Compl. ¶ 29 a-g 22 (defining sub-classes)). 23 II. LEGAL STANDARD 24 A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to federal district 25 court when the federal court has original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. § 26 1441(a). “A suit may be removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) only if it 27 could have been brought there originally.” Sullivan v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 813 28 F.2d 1368, 1371 (9th Cir. 1987). “The burden of establishing federal subject matter 1 jurisdiction falls on the party invoking removal.” Marin Gen. Hosp. v. Modesto & 2 Empire Traction Co., 581 F.3d 941, 944 (9th Cir. 2009). “Federal jurisdiction must 3 be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus 4 v. Miles, Inc., 908 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). 5 Pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), federal district courts 6 have original jurisdiction over certain class actions. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). 7 To remove a case to federal court under CAFA, the defendant must establish that 8 (1) the parties are minimally diverse, (2) the proposed class has more than 100 9 members, and (3) the total amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. 28 U.S.C. § 10 1332(d); Serrano v. 180 Connect, Inc., 478 F.3d 1018, 1020–21 (9th Cir. 2007). 11 III. DISCUSSION 12 Plaintiff argues that this action should be remanded to Los Angeles County 13 Superior Court because Defendants have not carried their burden of proving the 14 requisite amount in controversy of $5 million by a preponderance of the evidence. 15 The Court disagrees. 16 A. CAFA Requirements for Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction 17 Again, CAFA jurisdiction requires minimal diversity, a class of more than 100 18 members, and an aggregate amount in controversy exceeding $5 million. Serrano, 19 478 F.3d at 1020–21. The Parties do not dispute that Plaintiff’s class exceeds 100 20 members or that the parties are minimally diverse.1 Thus, the Court must only 21

23 1 The class size requirement is met because, while the Complaint does not identify a specific number of class members, it states that the class likely exceeds 100 24 individuals. (Compl. ¶ 32 (“[I]t is estimated that the membership of the Classes numbers greater than 100 individuals.”)) Further, MOOG’s records indicate that there 25 are 519 total prospective class members within the timeframe specified in the Complaint. (NOR ¶ 15). The diversity requirement is also met because MOOG is a 26 New York corporation with its principal place of business in New York, and the 27 prospective class will contain only California citizens. (NOR at 3–4; see also Compl. ¶ 5 (“The relevant employees are Defendants’ non-exempt current and former 28 employees, who are California citizens[.]”). 1 determine whether Defendants have satisfied the amount in controversy requirement 2 of $5 million for CAFA jurisdiction to vest in federal court. 3 B. Defendants Establish by a Preponderance of the Evidence that the 4 Amount in Controversy Exceeds $5 Million 5 In determining the amount in controversy, courts first look to the allegations in 6 the complaint. Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015). 7 Courts can accept a plaintiff’s good faith allegation of the amount in controversy. Id. 8 However, if “the plaintiff’s complaint does not state the amount in controversy, the 9 defendant’s notice of removal may do so” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 10 1446(c)(2)(A). Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 84 11 (2014). “[N]o antiremoval presumption attends cases invoking CAFA[.]” Id. at 89. 12 “[T]he defendant seeking removal bears the burden to show by a preponderance of the 13 evidence that the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million when federal 14 jurisdiction is challenged.” Ibarra, 775 F.3d at 1197 (citing Rodriguez v. AT & T 15 Mobility Serv. LLC, 728 F.3d 975, 981 (9th Cir. 2013)). Then “[t]he parties may 16 submit evidence outside the complaint, including affidavits or declarations, or other 17 summary-judgment-type evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time of 18 removal.” Id. at 1197 (citing Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 19 377 (9th Cir. 1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[W]hen the defendant’s 20 assertion of the amount in controversy is challenged by plaintiffs in a motion to 21 remand, the Supreme Court has said that both sides submit proof and the court then 22 decides where the preponderance lies.” Id. at 1198. “[W]hen a defendant’s 23 allegations of removal jurisdiction are challenged, the defendant’s showing on the 24 amount in controversy may rely on reasonable assumptions.” Arias v. Residence Inn 25 by Marriot, 936 F.3d 920, 922 (9th Cir. 2019). 26 Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not state an aggregate amount in controversy 27 for the putative class. Therein he simply states—in a conclusory fashion—that the 28 “aggregate claim is under five million dollars.” (Compl. ¶ 25.) However, Defendants 1 challenge this assertion in their NOR by attempting to make “reasonable assumptions” 2 to demonstrate that the aggregate claim does in fact exceed $5 million jurisdictional 3 minimum. Now in opposing remand, Defendants submit a declaration from Kathy 4 Brooks, Director of Human Resources Operations for Moog, Inc., which they claim 5 shows that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. (See Declaration of Kathy 6 Brooks (“Brooks Decl.”), Dkt. No. 11-1)). Defendants’ NOR calculates the amount in 7 controversy as $11,854,969.00, based on the following: 8 9 Claim Amount in Controversy 10 Unpaid Overtime and $3,065,808.81 (1 hour overtime: 47.91 (average 11 Minimum Wages overtime rate) x 63,991 (work weeks) x 1 hour) to 12 $6,131,617.62 (2 hour overtime; same, but x 2 13 hours) 14 Unpaid Overtime Based $39,000.00 (125 employees x 52 work weeks per 15 Upon a Shift year x $1.50 for 1 hour of overtime per work week) 16 Differential up to $195,000.00 (125 employees x 52 work weeks 17 per year x 4 years x 7.50) (for 2 hours of overtime 18 per week) 19 Unpaid Rest Break $6,131,617.62 ($31.94 (average hourly rate) x 3 20 Premiums (missed rest break premiums) x 63,991 (work 21 weeks)) based on a 30% violation rate estimate and 22 assuming class members missed three rest periods 23 per work week. See Bryant v. NCR Corp., 284 F. 24 Supp. 3d 1147, 1151 (S.D. Cal. 2018). 25 Inaccurate Wage $1,776,000 (444 employees x $4,000 maximum 26 Statements penalty), assuming a 100% violation rate with a 27 $4,000 maximum penalty cap)) 28 1 Waiting Time Penalties $881,544.00 (115 former employees x $31.94 2 (average rate of pay) x 8 hours per day x 30 days)) 3 Attorneys’ Fees $2,963,742.00 (based on 25% of $11,854,969.00 4 calculated total and using the lower overtime 5 damages) 6 (See NOR at 8–14.) 7 1. Plaintiff admits and agrees that the base calculation for the 8 amount in controversy is $4,306,997.42, excluding attorneys’ fees. 9 In his Motion, Plaintiff initially admits and agrees that the amount in 10 controversy is $4,313,997.42, and thus below the $5,000,000 jurisdictional threshold. 11 (See Motion at 5.) Plaintiff’s own calculations are as follows: 12 $2,043,872.54 in rest period violations plus $306,580.88 in alleged 13 overtime violations plus $888.0002 in wage statement claims plus $881,544 in 203 penalties plus $195,000 on the shift differential claim 14 equals $4,313,997,42.3 15 (Id.) 16 Defendants maintain that, even accepting Plaintiff’s calculations—which it 17 recalculates at $4,306,997.42—the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. (Opp’n 18 at 2.) Specifically, Defendants claim that, based on the $4,306,997.42 figure, 19 attorneys’ fees (calculated at 25% of the amount in controversy) would catapult the 20 amount in controversy to $5,383,746.78, clearly over the 5,000,000 minimum for 21 federal jurisdiction. (Id.) 22 Plaintiff counters that the “violation rates in his motion to remand are more 23 likely true than Defendant’s speculative violation rates set forth in their notice and 24

25 2 The Court believes that the period in “888.000” is a typo that should have been a 26 comma signifying hundreds of thousands of dollars, not hundreds of dollars. This 27 interpretation is also supported by Plaintiff’s final calculations. 3 The Court’s calculations of Plaintiff’s above-admitted numbers comes to a total of 28 $4,314,997.42, as Defendants point out. (Opp’n at 14, n.22). 1 repeated in their opposition. The amount in controversy is therefore, at most, 2 $4,306,997.42.” (Reply at 4.) 3 Here, for the purposes of this Motion, the Court will use the final, agreed-upon 4 amount in controversy of $4,306,997.42 to calculate attorneys’ fees, which are 5 appropriately included in the total amount in controversy. 6 2. Reasonable attorneys’ fees should be added to Plaintiff’s admitted amount in controversy of $4,306,997.42, and when added, this 7 figure exceeds the $5 million jurisdictional threshold, rendering 8 remand improper. 9 “[A] court must include future attorneys’ fees recoverable by statute or contract 10 when assessing whether the amount-in-controversy requirement is met.” Fritsch v. 11 Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., LLC, 899 F.3d 785, 794 (9th Cir. 2018) (emphasis added); 12 see also Arias, 936 F.3d at 922. The removing defendant must “prove that the amount 13 in controversy (including attorneys’ fees) exceeds the jurisdictional threshold by a 14 preponderance of the evidence.” Fritsch, 899 F.3d at 795; see also Arias, 936 F.3d at 15 927–28. District courts may also rely upon “‘their own knowledge of customary rates 16 and their experience concerning reasonable and proper fees.’” Fritsch, 899 F.3d at 17 795 (quoting Ingram v. Oroudjian, 647 F.3d 925, 928 (9th Cir. 2011)). 18 Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint requests attorneys’ fees, which are permitted under 19 California law for their First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Seventh Causes of 20 Action. (See Compl. Prayer for Relief at 21–23.) Because the law allows Plaintiff to 21 collect attorneys’ fees if he is the prevailing party in the litigation, attorneys’ fees are 22 at stake and accordingly must be included in the amount in controversy calculation. 23 Fritsch, 899 F.3d at 793–94. 24 To reach the $5 million threshold for jurisdiction to vest in this Court, based 25 upon Plaintiff’s admitted amount in controversy of $4,306,997.42, the attorneys’ fees 26 must total $693,002.58, or 13.86% of $5 million. In the CAFA context, “the Ninth 27 Circuit has established that 25% of the common fund is a fair estimate of attorneys’ 28 fees.” Tompkins v. Basic Research LL, No. CIV. S-08-244 LKK/DAD, 2008 WL 1 | 1808316, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2008) (citing Staton v. Bowing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 2 | 969 (9th Cir. 2003)). Accordingly, several courts in this Circuit, including this Court, 3 || have found that 25% attorneys’ fees could be reasonable in CAFA wage and hour 4 || cases. See, e.g., Hamilton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. ED CV 17-01415—AB 5 | (KKx), 2017 WL 4355903, at *5—6 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2017) (CAFA wage and hour 6 | case allowing an estimated attorneys’ fee award of 25% of plaintiff's damages in 7 | calculating the amount in controversy); Sanchez v. Russel Sigler Inc., 2015 WL 8 | 12765359, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2015) (CAFA action finding that “the benchmark 9 | for attorneys’ fees is 25% of the amount in controversy.”); Gutierrez v. Stericycle, 10 | Inc., Case No. LA CV15-08187 JAK (JEMx), 2017 WL 599412, at *17 (C.D. Cal. 11 | Feb. 14, 2017) (CAFA wage and hour case noting that “it is appropriate to include in 12 | the calculation of the amount in controversy a potential fee award of 25% of the value 13 | of certain of the substantive claims.”). Thus, the Court finds that an attorneys’ fees 14 | rate of 13.86% 1s clearly reasonable, and concludes the Defendants have met their 15 | burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy 16 | exceeds $5 million for federal court jurisdiction here. 17 | IV. CONCLUSION 18 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Remand 19 | and retains jurisdiction over this matter. 20 21 | ITISSO ORDERED. 22 23 | Dated: February 27, 2020 . HONORABLE ANDRE BIROTTE JR. 35 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

26 27 28 8.