Padilla v. APL Logistics Americas LTD

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 10, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02318
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 ANTHONY PADILLA, individually, No. 2:24-cv-02318 WBS SCR and on behalf of other members 13 of the general public similarly situated, 14 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND 15 v. 16 APL LOGISTICS AMERICAS LTD., a 17 California corporation; APL LOGISTICS WAREHOUSE MANAGEMENT 18 SERVICES INC., a Florida corporation; CARMICHAEL 19 INTERNATIONAL SERVICE, a California corporation; APL 20 LOGISTICS GROUP, an unknown business entity; APL LOGISTICS 21 LTD., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, 22 inclusive, 23 Defendants. 24 ----oo0oo---- 25 26 Plaintiff Anthony Padilla filed this putative wage-and- 27 hour class action in San Joaquin County Superior Court against 28 defendants APL Logistics Americas Ltd., APL Logistics Warehouse 1 Management Services Inc., Carmichael International Service, APL 2 Logistics Group, and APL Logistics Ltd. (Compl. (Docket No. 1- 3 1).) Defendants removed the action to this court pursuant to the 4 Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). (Docket 5 No. 1.) Plaintiff now moves to remand. (Mot. (Docket No. 12).) 6 Under the federal removal statute, “any civil action 7 brought in a State court of which the district courts of the 8 United States have original jurisdiction may be removed by the 9 defendant . . . to the district court of the United States for 10 the district . . . where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 11 1441(a). Under CAFA, the federal courts have original 12 jurisdiction over class actions in which the parties are 13 minimally diverse, the proposed class has at least 100 members, 14 and the aggregated amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. 28 15 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). “[N]o antiremoval presumption attends cases 16 invoking CAFA, which Congress enacted to facilitate adjudication 17 of certain class actions in federal court.” Dart Cherokee Basin 18 Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). 19 “The mechanics and requirements for removal are 20 governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1446,” which “identifies two thirty-day 21 periods for removing a case.” Kuxhausen v. BMW Fin. Servs. NA 22 LLC, 707 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2013). “The first thirty-day 23 removal period [under § 1446(b)(1)] is triggered if the case 24 stated by the initial pleading is removable on its face.” 25 Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 885 (9th 26 Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The second 27 thirty-day removal period [under § 1446(b)(3)] is triggered if 28 the initial pleading does not indicate that the case is 1 removable, and the defendant receives ‘a copy of an amended 2 pleading, motion, order or other paper’ from which removability 3 may first be ascertained.” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)). 4 “A CAFA case may be removed at any time, provided that 5 neither of the two thirty-day periods under § 1446(b)(1) and 6 (b)(3) has been triggered.” Roth v. CHA Hollywood Med. Ctr., 7 L.P., 720 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 2013). 8 Plaintiff argues that “[w]hile the Complaint does not 9 necessarily signal an amount in controversy or the number of 10 putative class members, this information was easily accessible 11 and in Defendant’s exclusive possession, custody, and control as 12 the employer,” and therefore “Defendant could have exercised 13 reasonable diligence to determine its removability.” (See Mot. 14 at 1, 4.) This argument lacks merit. 15 “[N]otice of removability under § 1446(b) is determined 16 through examination of the four corners of the applicable 17 pleadings, not through subjective knowledge or a duty to make 18 further inquiry.” Harris v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 19 689, 694 (9th Cir. 2005). “[E]ven if a defendant could have 20 discovered grounds for removability through investigation, it 21 does not lose the right to remove because it did not conduct such 22 an investigation and then file a notice of removal within thirty 23 days of receiving the indeterminate document.” Roth, 720 F.3d at 24 1125. While a defendant must “apply a reasonable amount of 25 intelligence in ascertaining removability,” for instance by 26 conducting calculations based on the figures provided in the 27 complaint, the defendant is “not obligated to supply information” 28 omitted by plaintiff’s pleadings in order to determine 1 removability. See Kuxhausen, 707 F.3d at 1141.1 2 As plaintiff apparently concedes (see Mot. at 1), the 3 complaint did not “affirmatively reveal[] on its face the facts 4 necessary for federal court jurisdiction.” See Blumberger v. 5 Tilley, 115 F.4th 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2024). The complaint 6 states that “the class is estimated to be greater than fifty (50) 7 individuals and the identity of such membership is readily 8 ascertainable by inspection of Defendants’ employment records.” 9 (Compl. ¶ 19(a).) This allegation falls short of the 100 class 10 members required by CAFA. The complaint provides no figures that 11 would enable the calculation of an amount-in-controversy greater 12 than $5 million. The first removal window under § 1446(b)(1) 13 therefore was not triggered. And plaintiff does not argue, nor 14 is there anything in the record to indicate, that plaintiff 15 served some other pleading that could trigger the second removal 16 window under § 1446(b)(3). 17 Defendants removed approximately four months following 18 the filing of the complaint “on the basis of [their] own 19 information,” which is permissible because neither 30-day period 20 was triggered. See Roth, 720 F.3d at 1125-26. Accordingly, the 21 action was not improperly removed. 22

23 1 Plaintiff cites three district court cases that concluded otherwise, holding that removability was triggered 24 based on information outside the pleadings within the defendants’ possession. See Dempsey v. Raley’s, No. 2:21-cv-02300 KJM DB, 25 2022 WL 1211241, at *2–3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2022); Thomas v. CVS Health Corp., No. 2:19-cv-04283-R-FFM, 2019 WL 3526344, at *3 26 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2019); Banta v. Am. Med. Response Inc., No. 27 11-cv-03586 GAF RZX, 2011 WL 2837642, at *6–8 (C.D. Cal. July 15, 2011). Because the court cannot reconcile these cases with the 28 Ninth Circuit authority cited above, they are unpersuasive. ne nnn en nnn nn ne EE IIE OSE I ED EO

1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to 2 remand (Docket No. 12) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. 3 | Dated: December 10, 2024 / td . ak. 2 / 4 WILLIAM B. SHUBB 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28