Tony Aguilar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Freedomsroads LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company

E.D. Washington

Tony Aguilar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Freedomsroads LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company

DecidedMarch 10, 2026

Docket4:25-cv-05132

StatusUnknown

This text of Tony Aguilar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Freedomsroads LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (Tony Aguilar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Freedomsroads LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tony Aguilar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Freedomsroads LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, (E.D. Wash. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Mar 10, 2026 4 5 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 TONY AGUILAR, individually and on No. 4:25-cv-05132-SAB 10 behalf of all others similarly situated, 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 FREEDOMSROADS LLC, a Minnesota REMAND 14 limited liability company, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, ECF No. 12. The motion 18 was heard without oral argument. Plaintiff is represented by April Rheaume, 19 Douglas Han, Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, and Winthrop Hubbard. Defendant is 20 represented by Matthew J. Macario. 21 Plaintiff filed a class action in Franklin County Superior Court against 22 Defendant, alleging eight causes of action for wage and hour violations under 23 Washington State law. Defendant then removed the case to the Eastern District of 24 Washington, invoking jurisdiction under diversity and the Class Action Fairness 25 Act (“CAFA”). ECF No. 1. 26 Plaintiff asks the Court to remand, arguing there are questions of fact as to 27 whether complete diversity exists. Plaintiff also contends Defendant has not met its 28 burden in satisfying CAFA’s jurisdictional amount in controversy requirements. 1 Motion Standard 2 Section 1441(a) permits parties to remove any action filed in state court to 3 federal court that originally could have been filed in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 4 1441(a). 5 Federal courts have original jurisdiction based on diversity when (1) there is 6 complete diversity of citizenship between all plaintiffs and all defendants, and (2) 7 the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). A natural 8 person is a citizen of the state in which they are domiciled at the time a lawsuit is 9 filed, whereas a Limited Liability Companies (“LLCs”) “is a citizen of every state 10 of which its owners/members are citizens.” Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749-50 11 (9th Cir. 1986); Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 12 (9th Cir. 2006). 13 Federal courts have original jurisdiction over class action complaints under 14 CAFA when (1) a class has more than 100 members, (2) plaintiffs and defendants 15 are minimally diverse (meaning at least one plaintiff is diverse from at least one 16 defendant), and (3) the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 17 1332(d)(2), (d)(5)(B). 18 CAFA’s amount in controversy jurisdictional requirement is an estimate of 19 the total possible amount that will be put at issue during litigation; it is not a 20 projection of the amount the plaintiff is likely to recover. Jauregui v. Roadrunner 21 Transp. Servs., 28 F.4th 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2022). If a complaint does not specify 22 the amount in controversy, and a plaintiff contests removal, the removing 23 defendant must prove the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the 24 evidence. Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc, 775 F.3d 1193, 1196 (9th Cir. 2015). 25 “The preponderance standard does not require a district court to perform a 26 detailed mathematical calculation” to determine if a defendant has satisfied its 27 burden. Harris v. KM Indus, 980 F.3d 694, 701 (9th Cir. 2020). Nor should a 28 district court insert its own assumptions. Id. A district court’s task is to assess if a 1 defendant’s “reasoning and underlying assumptions” are reasonable based on what 2 is stated in the complaint. Jauregui, 28 F.4th at 993. 3 Defendants are not required to submit evidence to prove an amount in 4 controversy estimate, because such a requirement would put them in the position of 5 proving they violated the law. Perez v. Rose Hills Co., 131 F.4th 804, 808-9 (9th 6 Cir. 2025). However, if an amount in controversy estimate is unreasonable, a 7 defendant is required to submit evidence supporting its calculation. Id. at 809. This 8 includes affidavits or declarations. Ibarra, 775 F.3d at 1197. 9 When a plaintiff uses generic phrasing—e.g. “at times,” “routinely,” and 10 “common course”—in describing alleged violation rates, defendants have greater 11 latitude in estimating the amount in controversy. An amount in controversy 12 estimate based on such phrasing is not unreasonable solely because it could also 13 support a lower estimate. Perez, 131 F.4th at 809-10. 14 As the Supreme Court has held, there is no antiremoval presumption for 15 CAFA cases, which should be heard in federal court when properly removed. Dart 16 Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). 17 Plaintiff’s Complaint 18 Plaintiff is bringing a class action based on the following putative class 19 definition:

20 All hourly-paid or non-exempt employees of Defendant in the State of 21 Washington at any time during the period from three years preceding the filing of this Complaint to final disposition of this action. 22 23 Plaintiff alleges Defendant engages in a “common course” of violating 24 Washington State laws and regulations, specifically: 25 (1) Failure to Provide Rest Periods; (2) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (3) 26 Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (4) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (5) 27 Failure to Accrue and Allow Use of Paid Sick Leave; (6) Making Unlawful 28 Deductions and Rebates; (7) Failure to Pay All Wages Due at Termination; and (8) 1 Willful Refusal to Pay Wages. 2 Plaintiff seeks compensatory, exemplary, and statutory damages, as well as 3 attorneys’ fees and costs. 4 Defendant’s Notice of Removal 5 Defendant asserts this Court has diversity jurisdiction because (1) the total 6 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and (2) Plaintiff is a resident of 7 Washington and Defendant is a resident of Minnesota, based on the Minnesota 8 citizenship of Defendant LLC’s sole member; therefore, Plaintiff and Defendant 9 are completely diverse. 10 Defendant further argues this Court has original jurisdiction under CAFA 11 because (1) Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Washington and Defendant is a 12 citizen of Minnesota, (2) the putative class includes over 800 people, and (3) the 13 estimated total amount in controversy is $9,357,255.60. 14 Per claim, Defendant assumes a weekly 100% violation rate of either two 15 missed breaks or 1-1.5 hours of unpaid wages. Defendant also includes statutory 16 double damages and an assumed 25% of the common fund awarded for attorney’s 17 fees. 18 Analysis 19 It appears there may be a genuine issue of material fact regarding complete 20 diversity because Plaintiff alleges Defendant may have failed to join a necessary 21 party to the lawsuit to satisfy diversity jurisdiction requirements. The Court need 22 not address the diversity jurisdiction question because it is satisfied it has original 23 jurisdiction to hear this case under the CAFA. 24 The Court finds Defendant has met the three requirements to establish 25 jurisdiction under the CAFA. First, Plaintiff and Defendant agree they are 26 minimally diverse and that the class includes more than 100. Second, Defendant 27 has shown the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Mar 10, 2026 4 5 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 TONY AGUILAR, individually and on No. 4:25-cv-05132-SAB 10 behalf of all others similarly situated, 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 FREEDOMSROADS LLC, a Minnesota REMAND 14 limited liability company, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, ECF No. 12. The motion 18 was heard without oral argument. Plaintiff is represented by April Rheaume, 19 Douglas Han, Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, and Winthrop Hubbard. Defendant is 20 represented by Matthew J. Macario. 21 Plaintiff filed a class action in Franklin County Superior Court against 22 Defendant, alleging eight causes of action for wage and hour violations under 23 Washington State law. Defendant then removed the case to the Eastern District of 24 Washington, invoking jurisdiction under diversity and the Class Action Fairness 25 Act (“CAFA”). ECF No. 1. 26 Plaintiff asks the Court to remand, arguing there are questions of fact as to 27 whether complete diversity exists. Plaintiff also contends Defendant has not met its 28 burden in satisfying CAFA’s jurisdictional amount in controversy requirements. 1 Motion Standard 2 Section 1441(a) permits parties to remove any action filed in state court to 3 federal court that originally could have been filed in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 4 1441(a). 5 Federal courts have original jurisdiction based on diversity when (1) there is 6 complete diversity of citizenship between all plaintiffs and all defendants, and (2) 7 the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). A natural 8 person is a citizen of the state in which they are domiciled at the time a lawsuit is 9 filed, whereas a Limited Liability Companies (“LLCs”) “is a citizen of every state 10 of which its owners/members are citizens.” Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749-50 11 (9th Cir. 1986); Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 12 (9th Cir. 2006). 13 Federal courts have original jurisdiction over class action complaints under 14 CAFA when (1) a class has more than 100 members, (2) plaintiffs and defendants 15 are minimally diverse (meaning at least one plaintiff is diverse from at least one 16 defendant), and (3) the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 17 1332(d)(2), (d)(5)(B). 18 CAFA’s amount in controversy jurisdictional requirement is an estimate of 19 the total possible amount that will be put at issue during litigation; it is not a 20 projection of the amount the plaintiff is likely to recover. Jauregui v. Roadrunner 21 Transp. Servs., 28 F.4th 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2022). If a complaint does not specify 22 the amount in controversy, and a plaintiff contests removal, the removing 23 defendant must prove the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the 24 evidence. Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc, 775 F.3d 1193, 1196 (9th Cir. 2015). 25 “The preponderance standard does not require a district court to perform a 26 detailed mathematical calculation” to determine if a defendant has satisfied its 27 burden. Harris v. KM Indus, 980 F.3d 694, 701 (9th Cir. 2020). Nor should a 28 district court insert its own assumptions. Id. A district court’s task is to assess if a 1 defendant’s “reasoning and underlying assumptions” are reasonable based on what 2 is stated in the complaint. Jauregui, 28 F.4th at 993. 3 Defendants are not required to submit evidence to prove an amount in 4 controversy estimate, because such a requirement would put them in the position of 5 proving they violated the law. Perez v. Rose Hills Co., 131 F.4th 804, 808-9 (9th 6 Cir. 2025). However, if an amount in controversy estimate is unreasonable, a 7 defendant is required to submit evidence supporting its calculation. Id. at 809. This 8 includes affidavits or declarations. Ibarra, 775 F.3d at 1197. 9 When a plaintiff uses generic phrasing—e.g. “at times,” “routinely,” and 10 “common course”—in describing alleged violation rates, defendants have greater 11 latitude in estimating the amount in controversy. An amount in controversy 12 estimate based on such phrasing is not unreasonable solely because it could also 13 support a lower estimate. Perez, 131 F.4th at 809-10. 14 As the Supreme Court has held, there is no antiremoval presumption for 15 CAFA cases, which should be heard in federal court when properly removed. Dart 16 Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). 17 Plaintiff’s Complaint 18 Plaintiff is bringing a class action based on the following putative class 19 definition:

20 All hourly-paid or non-exempt employees of Defendant in the State of 21 Washington at any time during the period from three years preceding the filing of this Complaint to final disposition of this action. 22 23 Plaintiff alleges Defendant engages in a “common course” of violating 24 Washington State laws and regulations, specifically: 25 (1) Failure to Provide Rest Periods; (2) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (3) 26 Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (4) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (5) 27 Failure to Accrue and Allow Use of Paid Sick Leave; (6) Making Unlawful 28 Deductions and Rebates; (7) Failure to Pay All Wages Due at Termination; and (8) 1 Willful Refusal to Pay Wages. 2 Plaintiff seeks compensatory, exemplary, and statutory damages, as well as 3 attorneys’ fees and costs. 4 Defendant’s Notice of Removal 5 Defendant asserts this Court has diversity jurisdiction because (1) the total 6 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and (2) Plaintiff is a resident of 7 Washington and Defendant is a resident of Minnesota, based on the Minnesota 8 citizenship of Defendant LLC’s sole member; therefore, Plaintiff and Defendant 9 are completely diverse. 10 Defendant further argues this Court has original jurisdiction under CAFA 11 because (1) Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Washington and Defendant is a 12 citizen of Minnesota, (2) the putative class includes over 800 people, and (3) the 13 estimated total amount in controversy is $9,357,255.60. 14 Per claim, Defendant assumes a weekly 100% violation rate of either two 15 missed breaks or 1-1.5 hours of unpaid wages. Defendant also includes statutory 16 double damages and an assumed 25% of the common fund awarded for attorney’s 17 fees. 18 Analysis 19 It appears there may be a genuine issue of material fact regarding complete 20 diversity because Plaintiff alleges Defendant may have failed to join a necessary 21 party to the lawsuit to satisfy diversity jurisdiction requirements. The Court need 22 not address the diversity jurisdiction question because it is satisfied it has original 23 jurisdiction to hear this case under the CAFA. 24 The Court finds Defendant has met the three requirements to establish 25 jurisdiction under the CAFA. First, Plaintiff and Defendant agree they are 26 minimally diverse and that the class includes more than 100. Second, Defendant 27 has shown the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. 28 Defendant’s reasoning and underlying assumptions are reasonable based on 1|| what is stated in Plaintiff's Complaint. In this matter, Plaintiff asserts Defendant engaged in a “common course” of violating Washington State laws and 3|| regulations. Given that this broad allegation infers a much higher violation rate than “at times,” it is reasonable for Defendant to base its estimate of the total 5|| possible amount at issue on an assumed violation rate of two missed breaks or 1- 1.5 hours of missed pay per week per claim. See e.g. Peraino v. DNC Parks & Resorts at Tenaya, No. 25-CV-1130-JES-DEB, 2025 WL 3022750, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2025). Defendant submitted evidence of the number of employes in 9)| the class and based its calculations on that number, which is reasonable and proper. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 11 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, ECF No. 12, is DENIED. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order 13||and forward copies to counsel. 14 DATED this 10th day of March 2026.

17 ee 18 Chief United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ORDER NENVING MOTION TO REMAND ~54

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Tony Aguilar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Freedomsroads LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tony-aguilar-individually-and-on-behalf-of-all-others-similarly-situated-waed-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack