Joan Wilkins v. Cargill, Incorporated et al

Filing 22

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND 9 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II (lc)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

JOAN WILKINS, individually, and on

12

behalf of other members of the general

13

public similarly situated,

Case No. 2:15-cv-02818-ODW (JEM)

REMAND [9]

Plaintiff,

14
15

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

v.

16

CARGILL, INCORPORATED;

17

CARGILL ANIMAL NUTRITION;

18

CERRI FEED & PET SUPPLY, LLC; and

19

DOES 1–100, inclusive,

20

Defendants.

21

I.

INTRODUCTION

22

On March 4, 2015, Plaintiff Joan Wilkins filed a putative class action complaint

23

in California state court against her former employers, Defendants Cargill, Inc.,

24

Cargill Animal Nutrition, and Cerri Feed & Pet Supply, LLC (collectively “Cargill”).

25

(ECF No. 1, Ex. A.) Wilkins raises ten causes of action under various California

26

statues, to include failure to pay overtime and provide rest breaks, and seeks to

27

represent all similarly situated, non-exempt employees during a four-year period. (Id.)

28

On April 16, 2015, Cargill removed the case pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act

1

(“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441. (ECF No. 1.) Pending before the Court is

2

Wilkin’s Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 9.) For the reasons discussed below, the

3

Court DENIES the Motion to Remand.1
II.

4

LEGAL STANDARD

5

A suit filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the federal court

6

has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). CAFA grants federal courts original

7

jurisdiction over class action cases that meet the following requirements: (1) the

8

proposed class contains more than 100 members; (2) minimal diversity exists between

9

the parties (i.e., at least one plaintiff and one defendant are from different states); (3)

10

the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000; and (4) the primary defendants are not

11

states, state officials, or other governmental entities. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2), (5).

12

“Congress designed the terms of CAFA specifically to permit a defendant to remove

13

certain class or mass actions into federal court.” Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 775

14

F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2014).

15

The removing defendant must file in the district court a notice of removal

16

“containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal . . . .” 28 U.S.C.

17

§ 1446(a). The Supreme Court recently held that “a defendant’s notice of removal

18

need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the

19

jurisdictional threshold,” and need not contain evidentiary submissions.

Dart

20

Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 554 (2014).

But,

21

“[e]vidence establishing the amount is required” where defendant’s assertion of the

22

amount in controversy is contested by the plaintiff. Id. “In such a case, both sides

23

submit proof and the court decides, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the

24

amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied.”

25

§ 1446(c)(2)(B)).

26

///

Id. (citing 28 U.S.C.

27
28

1

After carefully considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, the Court
deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15.

2

III.

1

DISCUSSION

2

In her Motion to Remand, Wilkins claims that Cargill’s removal is improper

3

because the Notice of Removal lacks factual support to substantiate Cargill’s claims

4

that this Court has jurisdiction under CAFA. (Mot. at 1.) Specifically, Wilkins argues

5

that there is no evidence to support the citizenship and amount-in-controversy

6

requirements. (Id.) In its Opposition Brief, Cargill provides evidence that the parties

7

are diverse and the amount in controversy is over $5 million. (See ECF No. 18.) Dart

8

Cherokee instructs that a notice of removal is required to set forth plausible

9

allegations of removal jurisdiction, but evidence is only required when such

10

allegations are challenged. Dart Cherokee, 135 S. Ct. at 547. Cargill complied with

11

Dart Cherokee when it submitted evidence in its Opposition Brief.

12

Wilkins is not satisfied with the evidence Cargill submitted. While Wilkins

13

abandons her assertion that the parties are not sufficiently diverse, she claims that

14

Cargill’s amount-in-controversy estimate of $19 million is based on “unreasonable

15

and unsupported assumptions.”

16

interpretation of her Complaint is that Cargill committed “some” violations of

17

California labor laws. (Id.) Cargill, however, used a “100% violation rate” in its

18

calculations.

19

[Complaint] to be correct, Plaintiff would have to have alleged that she and the class

20

were never paid for any of the hours they worked and were never provided any meal

21

and rest periods.” (Id. at 3.)

22

(Id.)

(Reply 1.)

Wilkins argues that the proper

According to Wilkins, “[f]or [Cargill’s] interpretation of the

The Court first notes that calculations based on a 100 percent rate of violation is

23

warranted by the language in the Complaint.

For example, Wilkins makes the

24

following allegation: “Plaintiff and other class members were required to work more

25

than eight (8) hours per day and/or forty (4) hours per week without overtime

26

compensation.”

27

Wilkins and the putative class members were never paid overtime compensation. The

28

Court also notes that while Wilkins claims that Cargill over-inflated its calculations,

(Compl. ¶ 39 [emphasis added].)

3

That allegation suggests that

1

she fails to offer any alternative calculation or alternative amount in controversy.

2

Wilkins presents no evidence on amount Cargill over-inflated, the proper calculation

3

of amount in controversy, or her estimate of the amount in controversy. Wilkins was

4

required to “submit proof” on what she believes is the correct amount in controversy,

5

but instead offers conclusory claims that Cargill’s estimate is “too much.” See Dark

6

Cherokee, 135 S. Ct. at 547.

7

preponderance of the evidence,” and without any evidence from Wilkins, Cargill’s

8

evidence prevails. See id. An independent review of the evidence indicates that

9

Cargill’s calculations are reasonable and not conclusory. This case involves 520

10

putative class members, 49,445 paychecks, 506,244 overtime hours, and 269,546

11

shifts greater than four hours. (Haynes Decl. ¶¶ 5–15.) Considering the average

12

hourly rate of $21.41 during the class period and the ten causes of action raised in the

13

Complaint, Cargill’s estimated $19 in controversy million appears reasonable. As a

14

result, the Court concludes that the jurisdictional requirements of CAFA are satisfied.
IV.

15
16
17
18

The Court is required to resolve the dispute “by a

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Wilkins’ Motion to
Remand. (ECF No. 9.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

June 4, 2015

21
22
23

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

4