Daniel Branch v. PM Realty Group L P et al

Filing 35

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND by Judge Manuel L. Real. The Court finds that PMRG fails to adequately support its calculations of the amount placed in controversy and therefore this Court lacks jurisdiction over this case under CAFA. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand 18 is GRANTED. Case remanded to State Court; case no. BC575759. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (lom)

1

JS-6

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

DANIEL BRANCH, as an individual and on
behalf of all similarly situated employees,

14
Plaintiff,

15
16
17
18

v.
PM REALTY GROUP, LP and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive,
Defendants.

19
20
21

) CASE NO. CV 15-3303-R
)
) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
) MOTION TO REMAND
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, which was filed on July 28, 2015.

22

Having been thoroughly briefed by both parties, this Court took the matter under submission on

23

August 28, 2015.

24

To remove a case from a state court to a federal court, a defendant must file in the federal

25

forum a notice of removal “containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal.” 28

26

U.S.C. § 1446(a). When removal is based on diversity of citizenship, an amount-in-controversy

27

requirement must be met. Ordinarily, “the matter in controversy [must] excee[d] the sum or value

28

of $75,000.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In class actions for which the requirement of diversity of

1

citizenship is relaxed, § 1332(d)(2)(A)–(C), “the matter in controversy [must] excee[d] the sum or

2

value of $5,000,000,” § 1332(d)(2). Under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), a federal

3

district court has original jurisdiction over a class action where the class members number at least

4

100, at least one plaintiff is diverse in citizenship from any defendant, and the aggregate amount in

5

controversy exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs. Id.

6

This last requirement under CAFA, the $5 million amount in controversy, has become a

7

major point of contention between many parties. See Dart Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135

8

S.Ct. 547 (2014); Ibarra v. Manheim Investments, Inc., 775 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2015);

9

Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n, 479 F.3d 994 (9th Cir.2007). In Dart, the Supreme Court

10

held that a removing party must initially file a notice of removal that includes “a plausible

11

allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” 135 S.Ct. at 554.

12

When “a defendant's assertion of the amount in controversy is challenged ... both sides submit

13

proof and the court decides, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the amount-in-

14

controversy requirement has been satisfied.” Id.

15

In Ibarra, the Ninth Circuit had to decide what proof a defendant seeking removal must

16

produce to prove the amount-in-controversy requirement under CAFA when the complaint did not

17

include a facially apparent amount in controversy. 775 F.3d at 1195. Following the reasoning of

18

the Dart Court, the Ninth Circuit found that remand back to the district court was necessary to

19

allow both sides to submit evidence related to the contested amount in controversy. “As with other

20

important areas of our law, evidence may be direct or circumstantial. In either event, a damages

21

assessment may require a chain of reasoning that includes assumptions. When that is so, those

22

assumptions cannot be pulled from thin air but need some reasonable ground underlying them.”

23

Id. at 1199 (emphasis added).

24

On March 17, 2015, Plaintiff Daniel Branch on behalf of himself and a proposed class of

25

similarly situated employees brought this action in the Superior Court of California against

26

Defendant PM Realty Group, LP (“PMRG”). Plaintiff alleges in his complaint several causes of

27

action all arising under California state law.

28

On May 1, 2015, Defendant PMRG removed this action from the Los Angeles Superior
2

1

Court to this Court, alleging CAFA jurisdiction under Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 1441, 1446. The

2

current motion before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand based on the Defendant’s failure

3

to establish that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action, specifically, that the

4

Defendant has failed to satisfy the amount in controversy jurisdictional threshold of $5 million.

5

In its Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, PMRG asserts that there is $6,422,666

6

in controversy, based on assumed rates of violations for each of Plaintiff’s claims. This estimate

7

includes Warn Act penalties, unpaid overtime and minimum wage, unpaid rest breaks, unpaid

8

meals, waiting time penalties, wage statement violations, and attorney’s fees. PMRG’s

9

calculations are based on 184 class members with 19,215.57 workweeks for the putative class

10

period. Moreover, PMRG’s violation rate is based on the deposition testimony of several class

11

members including the class representative, Daniel Branch.

12

Based on Mr. Branch’s deposition testimony where he stated that he and putative class

13

members were “often forced to forego a meal period and/or work during their meal period,”

14

Defendant assessed two meal period violations and two rest period violations per workweek for

15

each putative class member. This assessment produced a combined total of $1,799,346 for all

16

unpaid rest breaks and all unpaid meal periods. While PMRG is perhaps justified in using such a

17

violation rate for Mr. Branch, PMRG erroneously applies this rate to the entire putative class.

18

PMRG has failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that each putative class

19

member, during the 19,215.57 workweek putative class period, is in fact entitled to such a

20

violation rate. This generalized allegation is insufficient to allow PMRG to assume that all

21

workweeks for each putative class member contained at least two meal period violations and two

22

rest period violations. See Ibarra, 775 F.3d 1198-99. While it is true that Mr. Branch claims that

23

he and putative class members were “often” forced to forego a meal period and/or work during

24

their meal period, this does not mean that such violations occurred in each and every shift of each

25

and every class member. See id. at 1199. It says nothing of the frequency of which PMRG would

26

deprive class members of their entitled meal periods or rest periods. This claim accounts for

27

$1,799,346 of PMRG’s asserted amount in controversy.

28

Even assuming that the remaining claims are validly established, PMRG fails to show that
3

1

there is more than $5 million in controversy. The Court finds that PMRG fails to adequately

2

support its calculations of the amount placed in controversy and therefore this Court lacks

3

jurisdiction over this case under CAFA.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED. (Dkt. No.

4
5

18)

6

Dated: September 8, 2015.

7
8
9
10

___________________________________
MANUEL L. REAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4