Michael Hass v. Flowers Bakeries Sales of Norcal, LLC, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: November 10, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-06018
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MICHAEL HASS, Case No. 25-cv-06018-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO DEFENDANTS TO SHOW 9 v. CAUSE RE: DIVERSITY JURISDICTION 10 FLOWERS BAKERIES SALES OF NORCAL, LLC, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 \\ 13 \\ 14 Plaintiff brought a putative class action against Defendants in state court for violation of 15 California wage and hour laws. Defendants removed the action to this federal court on the basis of 16 diversity jurisdiction, not jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 7.)1 17 Defendants contend there is complete diversity between Plaintiff Michael Hass and Defendants 18 and that the $75,000 amount in controversy is satisfied as to Mr. Hass. 19 A defendant seeking removal “bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper” and 20 the “removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Provincial Gov't of 21 Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). “Where, as here, it is 22 unclear or ambiguous from the face of a state-court complaint whether the requisite amount in 23 controversy is pled, the removing defendant bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance 24 of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Urbino v. 25 Orkin Servs. of Cal., Inc., 726 F.3d 1118, 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2013) (cleaned up). Further, when a 26 27 1 case is removed to federal court, the court has an independent obligation to satisfy itself that it has 2 federal subject matter jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 3 2004). A case must be remanded back to state court “if at any time before final judgment it 4 appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 5 With respect to their burden of showing the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, 6 Defendants estimate the amount of controversy as to Mr. Hass is $152,632, which consists of 7 $28,282 in damages and penalties and $124,350 in attorneys’ fees. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 60.) They 8 calculate the amount of fees based on 150 hours of attorney time at Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly 9 rate of $829.00. (Id. ¶¶ 57-59.) The Notice of Removal does not satisfy Defendants’ burden of 10 showing the amount in controversy is satisfied. 11 When calculating the amount in controversy in a putative class action, “the potential 12 attorneys’ fees should be attributed pro rata to each class member.” Rosenwald v. Kimberly-Clark 13 Corp., 152 F.4th 1167, 1179–80 (9th Cir. 2025) (citing Goldberg v. CPC Int’l, Inc., 678 F.2d 14 1365, 1367 (9th Cir. 1982)) (cleaned up). So, even if Plaintiff’s damages at issue here total 15 $28,282, diversity jurisdiction requires $46,718 in attorneys’ fees “per class member.” Rosenwald, 16 152 F.4th at 1179 (italics in original). Plaintiff estimates the class is “greater than two hundred 17 (200) individuals.” (Dkt. No. 1-2 ¶ 23a). To satisfy the amount in controversy, Plaintiff’s 18 attorneys’ fees award would need to be roughly $9.3 million, i.e., over 11,000 hours at Plaintiff’s 19 counsel’s rate of $829 an hour. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 57.) Defendant has not shown that is likely to 20 happen; of Defendant’s cited cases, the upper end of what a plaintiff’s attorney worked was 869.6 21 hours. (Id. ¶ 56 (citing Betancourt v. OS Restaurant Services, LLC, 83 Cal. App. 5th 132, 136 22 (2022)).) And Defendant’s cited wage and hour cases in which courts estimated future attorneys’ 23 fees to be above $75,000 are not persuasive because they did not apportion attorneys’ fees among 24 all class members as Ninth Circuit law requires. See, e.g., Swans v. Fieldworks, LLC, 2023 WL 25 196918 *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2023); Lippold v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 2010 WL 1526441 *3– 26 4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2010); Sasso v. Noble Utah Long Beach, LLC, 2015 WL 898468 *5–6 (C.D. 27 Cal. Mar. 3, 2015). So, from the Notice of Removal it appears the amount of controversy is not 1 Accordingly, on or before November 17, 2025, Defendants are ORDERED TO SHOW 2 || CAUSE in writing how this federal court has removal jurisdiction based on diversity jurisdiction. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: November 10, 2025 , re 6 ACMYUELINE SCOTT CORLE 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12

15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28