Elba Mendizabal v. Crothall Healthcare Inc.

Filing 26

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): Order DENYING Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 16) by Judge Dale S. Fischer: "see memorandum for specifics" (bp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM

Case No.
Title

Date

CV 14-8901 DSF (AJWx)

1/21/15

Elba Mendizabal v. Crothall Healthcare Inc.

Present: The
Honorable

DALE S. FISCHER, United States District Judge

Debra Plato
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order DENYING Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 16)

Plaintiff has moved to remand this case. The Court deems this matter appropriate
for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. The
hearing set for January 26, 2015 is removed from the Court’s calendar.
There is no question that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.
Defendant has submitted a declaration that states that at least 47,745 pay statements were
issued to non-exempt employees during the class period. (Pasquarello Decl. ¶ 8.) From
this piece of information, an amount in controversy can be calculated that exceeds
$5,000,000, as Defendant has done in the Notice of Removal and its opposition to this
motion. Defendant’s position is not speculative. Plaintiff provides no reason to believe
that the pay statements differ in any way relevant to this case other than to raise the
possibility of minor exceptions – such as statements issued for bonuses – that would not
plausibly make any substantial difference to the amount in controversy calculation. Cf.
Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 2014 WL 7495131, *4 (9th Cir. Jan. 8, 2015) (assumption
that employees were always prevented from taking meal and rest breaks unduly
speculative). Unlike the taking of meal and rest breaks, it is perfectly plausible to assume
that a wage statement issued by a company either always contains or never contains
certain kinds of information unless the Court is presented evidence to the contrary. Much
of Plaintiff’s motion and reply are attempts to contradict Plaintiff’s own allegations such
as the allegation that the class members were injured by the incomplete or inaccurate
wage statements and the allegation that the class members are similarly situated and their
CV-90 (12/02)

MEMORANDUM

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
cases can be adjudicated with common proof.
The motion to remand is DENIED. The Court sees no reason under Ibarra to grant
preliminary jurisdictional discovery on the issues presented as such discovery is highly
unlikely to change the outcome of the remand motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (12/02)

MEMORANDUM

Page 2 of 2