Joshua Sauer v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America et al

Filing 8

ORDER REMANDING THE ACTION TO THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen remanding case to Superior Court of California, Case number LC094236 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 remand letter) (bp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:11-cv-08699-JHN-RZ

Title

Joshua Sauer v. The Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

October 28, 2011

JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN

Chris Silva

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not present

Not present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING THE ACTION TO THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

The Court has reviewed the Notice of Removal filed by Defendant Prudential Insurance
Company (“Defendant”). (Docket No. 1.) After careful consideration of the record, the
Court REMANDS the action to the SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES for the reasons stated below.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Joshua Sauer (“Plaintiff”), a former employee of Prudential Insurance Company
(“Defendant”), filed a wage and hour claim for damages against the Defendant. (Compl.
¶ 4.) On November 3, 2008, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a financial services
associate for a period of two-years. (Id.) On February 15, 2010, prior to the termination
of the two-year employment contract, Defendant required Plaintiff to enter into a new
written contract wherein Plaintiff became a statutory agent and an independent
contractor. (Id. at 5.) As a statutory agent, Plaintiff forfeited an enhancement bonus of
$663.41 based on his quarterly Gross Distribution Revenue, which he would have been
entitled to had he remained a financial services agent. (Domenick Decl. ¶¶ 3-5.) Plaintiff
alleges Defendant forced him to sign the new contract under duress, and the unilateral
abrogation of the pre-existing contract constituted a constructive termination of Plaintiff’s
employment. (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 11.)
Plaintiff brought this action in state court alleging causes of action for violation of (1)
Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226 and 1198.5; (2) breach of contract; (3) waiting time penalties; and
(4) violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 216 and 225.5. Plaintiff seeks special damages,
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:11-cv-08699-JHN-RZ

Date

Title

October 28, 2011

Joshua Sauer v. The Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. et al.

attorney’s fees, and other cost to be determined at trial. However, the Complaint is silent
as to the amount of recovery Plaintiff is seeking. Thereafter, Defendant removed the
action to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction.
II. DISCUSSION
The defendant bears the burden of establishing the propriety of removal, including
actually proving that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Gaus v. Miles,
Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566-567 (9th Cir. 1992). When the complaint is unclear as to the
amount of damages that plaintiff seeks, the defendant must show by a preponderance of
the evidence that the amount in controversy requirement is met. Sanchez v. Monumental
Life Ins. Co., 95 F.3d 856, 860 (9th Cir. 1996).
When it is not “facially apparent” from the complaint that the claims likely exceed the
required amount, the district court may consider facts set forth in the notice of removal
and “summary judgment-type evidence” relevant to the amount in controversy. Luckett v.
Delta Airlines, Inc., 171 F.3d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1999); Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d
1326 (5th Cir. 1995)). Conclusory allegations are insufficient to meet the burden; rather,
defendant must state the underlying facts supporting its assertion that the amount in
controversy is met. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004)
(allegations on “information and belief” did not prove jurisdictional amount for purposes
of removal jurisdiction). The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction necessarily
means that federal jurisdiction “must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of
removal in the first instance.” Gaus, 980 F. 2d at 566.
Here, Defendant’s blanket assertion that the amount is likely to exceed $75,000 is not
enough to establish diversity jurisdiction.
A.

Attorney’s Fees

Attorney’s fees may be included in the jurisdictional amount if such recovery is allowed
by contract or state. Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 1998).
California allows recovery of attorney’s fees in bad faith claims. Essex Ins. Co. v. Five
Star Dye House, Inc., 38 Cal. 4th 1252, 1255 (2006) (“[I]n a tort action against an
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:11-cv-08699-JHN-RZ

Date

Title

October 28, 2011

Joshua Sauer v. The Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. et al.

insurance company for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, an insured may
recover as damages those attorney fees that are incurred in the same action and are
attributable to the attorney’s efforts to recover policy benefits that the insurer has
wrongfully withheld.”) Some courts include the calculation of attorney’s fees incurred
after the date of removal and other courts prohibit it.1 The Court need not reach the issue
here because Defendant did not provide any factual basis for determining how much
attorney’s fees have been incurred thus far and will be incurred in the future. (See Notice
of Removal ¶¶ 17-18.) Defendant’s conclusory allegation that attorney’s fees in a single
plaintiff wage and hour cases typically exceeds $50,000 is insufficient. (Id. ¶ 18.) Thus,
Defendant’s inclusion of Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees is speculative, unsupported, and
cannot be included in determining the amount in controversy.
B.

Penalty For Failure To Permit Inspection

Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action is for violations of California Labor Code §§ 226 and
1198.5. (Compl. ¶ 19.) Section 226(c) imposes a $750 penalty for failing to permit
inspection of employee records, in addition to a fine of no less than $100 under Section
1199 for the same conduct. (Notice of Removal ¶ 12.) Thus, the potential amount
recoverable under Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action is $850.
C.

Breach of Contract

Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action is a breach of contract claim. (Compl. ¶ 24.) Plaintiff
is seeking the difference in compensation he would have received had he remained a
1

Compare Faulkner v. Astro-Med, Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15801, 1999 WL
820198 at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 1999) (“When estimating attorney’s fees for the purposes
of establishing jurisdiction, the only fees that can be considered are those incurred as of
the date of removal.”); Conrad Assocs. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 994 F. Supp.
1196, 1200 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (declining to consider attorney’s fees spent after the date of
removal) with Brady v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 2d 1004, 1010-11 (N.D.
Cal. 2002) (including “a reasonable estimate of attorneys fees likely to be expended” in
calculating the amount in controversy); Simmons v. PCR Tech., 209 F. Supp. 2d 1029,
1031 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (same); Burk v. Medical Sav. Ins. Co., 348 F. Supp. 2d 1063,
1068-1069 (D. Ariz. 2004).
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:11-cv-08699-JHN-RZ

Date

Title

October 28, 2011

Joshua Sauer v. The Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. et al.

financial services associate, in addition to the compensation during the time period from
his constructive termination to the end of contract date. (Notice of Removal ¶ 13.)
According to the Defendant, the potential amount recoverable under Plaintiff’s Second
Cause of Action is $663.93. (Id. ¶ 14.)
D.

Wages Due Upon Termination

Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action is for a violation of California Labor Code § 203.
(Compl. ¶ 31.) Section 203 allows Plaintiff to collect the wages he was due at the time of
termination. Cal. Labor Code § 203(a). However, recovery of wages is limited to 30
days. Thus, Plaintiff’s potential amount recoverable under his Third Cause of Action is
$3,600 because Plaintiff’s daily rate was $120 multiplied by 30 days. (Notice of
Removal ¶ 15.)
E.

Failure to Pay Wages

Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action alleges violations of California Labor Code §§ 216 and
225.5. (Compl. ¶¶ 37-38.) However, these sections do not authorize a private cause of
action to recover damages. (Notice of Removal ¶ 16.)
F.

Costs and Prejudgment Interest

Costs and prejudgment interest are expressly prohibited from inclusion in the amount in
controversy requirement. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 4 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:11-cv-08699-JHN-RZ

Date

Title

October 28, 2011

Joshua Sauer v. The Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. et al.

III. CONCLUSION
Defendant has failed to provide any evidence that it is more likely than not that the
amount in controversy in this case exceeds $75,000. Excluding the allegation of
attorney’s fees, the potential amount in controversy apparently totals $5,113.93. In light
of the “strong presumption against removal jurisdiction,” Gaus, 980 F.2d at 556, the
Court REMANDS the action to the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR
COURT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

N/A

CSI

Page 5 of 5