Catalina Ricaldai v. US Investigations Services, LLC et al

Filing 11

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion To Remand Case to Los Angeles Superior Court 6 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Having considered the papers submitted by the parties, and in particular the calculations and numbers provided by Defendants, the court finds that Defendants have met their burden of providing facts in support of removal. Plaintiffs Motion to Remand Case to Los Angeles Superior Court is DENIED. (sch)

-PLA Catalina Ricaldai v. US Investigations Services, LLC et al

Doc. 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. US INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liablity company , Defendants. ___________________________ CATALINA RICALDAI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 10-07388 DDP (PLAx) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND CASE TO LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT [Motion filed on November 3, 2010] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Presently before the court is Plaintiff Catalina Ricaldai's Motion to Remand Case to Los Angeles Superior Court. Plaintiff

argues that removal to this court was improper because the matter does not meet the amount-in-controversy threshold for original subject matter jurisdiction. (Pl.'s Motion 2:9-11.)

The "strong presumption" against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper. 1992). Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.

Here, Defendant U.S. Investigations Services, LLC has set

forth a detailed calculation of the jurisdictional amount.

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

According to Defendant's calculations "even using the lowest possible number of California Investigators who allegedly missed meal periods, and assuming that only half of separated California Investigators could recover waiting time penalties, the amount in controversy still exceeds $8 million," well above the minimum for purposes of removal pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Having considered the papers submitted by the parties, and in particular the calculations and numbers provided by Defendants, the court finds that Defendants have met their burden of providing facts in support of removal. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Case to

Los Angeles Superior Court is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2010

DEAN D. PREGERSON United States District Judge

2