Jesus Fuentes v. Bellingham Marine Industries, Inc.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: June 10, 2024
• Docket: 8:24-cv-00035
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESUS FUENTES, individually, and on Case No. 8:24-cv-00035-JWH-ADS behalf of other members of the 12 general public similarly situated, ORDER REGARDING 13 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF No. 13]; 14 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND [ECF No. 19]; AND 15 BELLINGHAM MARINE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE INDUSTRIES, INC., and REGARDING SUBJECT MATTER 16 DOES 1-100, inclusive, JURISDICTION [ECF No. 30]

17 Defendants.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Before the Court are the following three matters: 2 • the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Bellingham Marine Industries, 3 Inc.;1 4 • the motion to remand filed by Plaintiff Jesus Fuentes;2 and 5 • the Court’s Order to Show Cause regarding subject matter jurisdiction.3 6 All matters are fully briefed.4 The Court concludes that these matters are 7 appropriate for resolution without a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. 8 For the reasons detailed herein, the Court DENIES without prejudice 9 Bellingham Marine’s Motion to Dismiss; DENIES Fuentes’s Motion to 10 Remand; and DISCHARGES the OSC. 11 I. BACKGROUND 12 Fuentes filed this case in Orange County Superior Court in November 13 2023.5 Fuentes, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 14 alleges various claims for relief for wage and hour violations under California 15 state law.6 16 17

18 1 Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (the “Motion to Dismiss”) [ECF No. 13]. 19 2 Pl.’s Mot. to Remand (the “Motion to Remand”) [ECF No. 19]. 20 3 Order to Show Cause Regarding Subject Matter Jurisdiction (the 21 “OSC”) [ECF No. 30]. 22 4 See Pl.’s Opp’n to Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion to Dismiss Opposition”) [ECF No. 20]; Def.’s Opp’n to Motion to Remand (the “Motion 23 to Remand Opposition”) [ECF No. 23]; Def.’s Reply in Supp. of Motion to 24 Dismiss [ECF No. 28]; Pl.’s Reply in Supp. of Motion to Remand [ECF No. 29]; Pl.’s Suppl. to Motion to Remand (“Fuentes’s OSC Response”) [ECF 25 No. 31]; and Def.’s Suppl. to Motion to Remand (“Bellingham Marine’s OSC 26 Response”) [ECF No. 32]. 27 5 See Notice of Removal [ECF No. 1] ¶ 2. 1 Bellingham Marine removed the action to this Court in January 2024, 2 asserting diversity jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 3 (“CAFA”) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 & 1441(b).7 Bellingham Marine filed its 4 Motion to Dismiss that same month,8 and Fuentes filed his Motion to Remand 5 in February 2024.9 6 II. LEGAL STANDARD 7 A. Motion to Remand 8 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Accordingly, “[t]hey 9 possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. 10 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). In every federal case, the 11 basis for federal jurisdiction must appear affirmatively from the record. See 12 DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n.3 (2006). “The right of 13 removal is entirely a creature of statute and a suit commenced in a state court 14 must remain there until cause is shown for its transfer under some act of 15 Congress.” Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002) (internal 16 quotation marks omitted). Where Congress has acted to create a right of 17 removal, those statutes, unless otherwise stated, are strictly construed against 18 removal jurisdiction. See id. 19 To remove an action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, the 20 removing defendant “must demonstrate that original subject-matter jurisdiction 21 lies in the federal courts.” Syngenta, 537 U.S. at 33. A defendant may remove 22 civil actions in which either (1) a federal question exists; or (2) complete 23 diversity of citizenship between the parties exists and the amount in controversy 24 exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332. “Complete diversity” means 25

26 7 See generally id. 27 8 See generally Motion to Dismiss. 1 that “each defendant must be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff.” 2 In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litigation, 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008). 3 With respect to class actions, district courts “have original jurisdiction of any 4 civil action in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of 5 $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is a class action in which . . . any 6 member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any 7 defendant.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). 8 The right to remove is not absolute, even when original jurisdiction exists. 9 In other words, the removing defendant bears the burden of establishing that 10 removal is proper. See Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th 11 Cir. 2006) (noting the “longstanding, near-canonical rule that the burden on 12 removal rests with the removing defendant”); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 13 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[t]he strong presumption against removal jurisdiction 14 means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is 15 proper” (quotation marks omitted)). Any doubts regarding the existence of 16 subject matter jurisdiction must be resolved in favor of remand. See id. 17 (“[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of 18 removal in the first instance”). 19 B. Motion to Dismiss 20 A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil 21 Procedure tests the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in a complaint. See 22 Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) 23 motion, “[a]ll allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the 24 light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Am. Family Ass’n v. City & 25 County of San Francisco, 277 F.3d 1114, 1120 (9th Cir. 2002). Although a 26 complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion “does not need detailed factual 27 allegations,” a plaintiff must provide “more than labels and conclusions.” Bell 1 To state a plausible claim for relief, the complaint “must contain 2 sufficient allegations of underlying facts” to support its legal conclusions. Starr 3 v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). “Factual allegations must be 4 enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption 5 that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact) . . . .” 6 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations and footnote omitted). Accordingly, to 7 survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, 8 accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” which 9 means that a plaintiff must plead sufficient factual content to “allow[] the Court 10 to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 11 alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks 12 omitted). A complaint must contain “well-pleaded facts” from which the Court 13 can “infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct.” Id. at 679. 14 C. Leave to Amend 15 A district court “should freely give leave when justice so requires.” 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The purpose underlying the liberal amendment policy is to 17 “facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or 18 technicalities.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). Therefore, 19 leave to amend should be granted unless the Court determines “that the 20 pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Id. 21 (quoting Doe v. United States, 8 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995)). 22 III. ANALYSIS 23 A. Motion to Remand and OSC 24 In his Motion to Remand, Fuentes asserts that the Court does not have 25 subject matter jurisdiction because Bellingham Marine has not sufficiently 26 27 1 proven the amount in controversy.10 Bellingham Marine rejects that assertion.11 2 The Court issued an OSC with respect to the amount in controversy, instructing 3 the parties to conduct jurisdictional discovery and to file supplemental briefs 4 accordingly.12 In its response to the OSC, Bellingham Marine provides 5 calculations that it asserts proves that the amount-in-controversy requirement 6 was satisfied at the time of removal.13 Specifically, Bellingham Marine argues 7 that the amount in controversy at the time of removal was more than $12 million 8 for the class and more than $75,000 for Fuentes’s individual claims.14 Fuentes 9 continues to dispute that Bellingham Marine has satisfied its burden upon 10 removal, but he does not offer any of his own calculations disputing those of 11 Bellingham Marine.15 12 In reviewing Bellingham Marine’s calculations, the Court concludes that 13 it has met its burden upon removal. Therefore, the Court DENIES Fuentes’s 14 Motion to Remand. Since the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied, 15 the Court also DISCHARGES the OSC. 16 B. Motion to Dismiss 17 Bellingham Marine moves to dismiss this case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), 18 arguing that Fuentes fails to state a claim.16 In his Opposition, Fuentes requests 19 leave to amend his pleading to address any deficiencies.17 20

21 10 See generally Motion to Remand. 22 11 See generally Motion to Remand Opposition. 23 12 See generally OSC. 24 13 Bellingham Marine’s OSC Response. 25 14 See generally id. 26 15 Fuentes’s OSC Response. 27 16 See generally Motion to Dismiss. 1 In view of the Court’s limited judicial resources, it is loath to adjudicate 2 serial motions under Rule 12(b) with respect to Fuentes’s claims. Instead, the 3 Court will direct the parties to engage in another, more rigorous, L.R. 7-3 4 Conference of Counsel and will grant Fuentes leave to file an amended pleading. 5 See Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) 6 (instructing lower courts that “Rule 15 advises the court that ‘leave shall be 7 freely given when justice so requires’” and that “[t]his policy is ‘to be applied 8 with extreme liberality’”) (citation and quotation omitted). 9 Therefore, the Court DENIES without prejudice Bellingham Marine’s 10 Motion to Dismiss. The Court suggests that Fuentes take this second 11 opportunity to consider carefully Bellingham Marine’s criticism of his pleading 12 and to present his best-pleaded claims, as the Court will be hesitant to grant 13 further leave to amend. 14 IV. DISPOSITION 15 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 16 1. Fuentes’s Motion to Remand is DENIED. 17 2. The OSC is DISCHARGED. 18 3. Bellingham Marine’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED without 19 prejudice. 20 4. The parties are DIRECTED forthwith to engage in another 21 L.R. 7-3 Conference of Counsel regarding the alleged infirmities in the 22 Complaint. 23 5. Fuentes is DIRECTED to file an amended pleading, if at all, no 24 later than June 28, 2024. If Fuentes chooses to file an amended pleading, he is 25 also DIRECTED to file contemporaneously therewith a Notice of Revisions to 26 Complaint that provides the Court with a redline version that shows the 27 amendments. 1 6. Bellingham Marine is DIRECTED to file its response to Fuentes’s 2\|| operative pleading no later than July 19, 2024. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. MO 5\| Dated: June 10, 2024 : 6 SNITED: STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28