Aurora Rios v. EDS Distribution Services, LLC et al

Filing 16

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order Remanding Action to State Court by Judge R. Gary Klausner: The Court hereby remands the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The action is hereby remanded to state court for all further proceedings; remanding case to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case number BC617069. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6 ) Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk)

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV16-04284-RGK (FFMx)

Title

AURORA RIOS aka JOSEFINA AISPURO TORRES v. EDS DISTRIBUTION
SERVICES, LLC

Present: The
Honorable

Date

July 25, 2016

R. GARY KLAUSNER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Sharon L. Williams (Not Present)

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) Order Remanding Action to State Court

On April 14, 2016, Aurora Rios aka Josefina Aispuro Torres (“Plaintiff”), filed a class action
against employer EDS Distribution Services, Inc. (“Defendant”). In her Complaint, Plaintiff asserts state
claims the following claims under the California Labor Code for (1) failure to overtime wages; (2)
failure to pay minimum wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest periods;
(5) failure to pay all wages upon termination; and (6) failure to provide accurate wages statements.
Plaintiff also asserts a claims for unfair competition in violation of the California Unfair Competition
Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.).
On June 15, 2016, Defendant removed the action to this Court alleging diversity of citizenship
under 28 U.S.C. §1141(b), or in the alternative, 28 U.S.C. §1453 (“CAFA”). Upon review of
Defendant’s Notice of Removal, the Court hereby remands the action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, district courts shall have original jurisdiction over any civil action
in which the parties are citizens of different states and the action involves an amount in controversy that
exceeds $75,000. After a plaintiff files a case in state court, the defendant attempting to remove the case
to federal court bears the burden of proving the amount in controversy requirement has been met.
Lowdermilk v. United States Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998 (9th Cir. 2007). Defendant adequately
shows that the parties are citizens of different states. However, Defendant attempts to show that the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, but does not succeed on the facts alleged.
Defendant calculates the amount in controversy by making significant assumptions. For
example, as to Plaintiff’s claim for wage statement penalties, Defendant assumes the maximum penalty
for both Plaintiff and the class members. However, this assumes payment on a weekly basis, without any
evidentiary support. As to Plaintiff’s meal and rest period claims, Defendant assumes that each of the
estimated 200 class members missed a meal and rest period every day for three years. Again, Defendant
CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

fails to offer evidence to support this assumption. Defendant also makes similar assumptions regarding
Plaintiff’s waiting time and unpaid wages claims. Based on its numerous assumptions, Defendant arrives
at an amount in controversy greater than $75,000 for Plaintiff’s individual claims, and greater than
$5,000,000 for the putative class claims.
However, equally valid assumptions could be made that result in damages less than the standard
and CAFA amounts in controversy requirements. Without any evidence supporting Defendant’s
assumptions, the Court finds Defendant’s calculations unpersuasive.
In short, Defendant asks the Court to speculate as to the number of wage statements, overtime
hours worked and the number of missed meal periods and rest breaks taken. The Court cannot base
jurisdiction on Defendant’s speculation and conjecture. Lowdermilk v. United States Bank Nat’l Assoc.,
479 F.3d 994, 1002 (2007). Even with the inclusion of attorneys’ fees in the calculation, Defendant is no
closer to carrying its burden because there is no basis for estimating the claims that Defendant primarily
relies upon to meet the jurisdictional threshold. See id. Accordingly, Defendant has failed to satisfy its
burden that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional requirement.
In light of the foregoing, the action is hereby remanded to state court for all further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2