David Whitaker v. U.S. Renal Care, Inc.

Filing 59

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND 14 by Judge Manuel L. Real. Case remanded to State Court Case Remanded to BC649682. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (lom)

1

JS-6

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

DAVID WHITAKER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15
16

v.
U.S. RENAL CARE, INC.; and DOES 1-20,
inclusive,

17
Defendants.
18
19

) CASE NO. CV 17-2661-R
)
) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
) MOTION TO REMAND
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, which was filed on May 1, 2017. (Dkt.

20

No. 14). Having been briefed thoroughly by both parties, this Court finds the matter suitable for

21

decision without the need for oral argument. Accordingly, the Court took the matter under

22

submission on June 14, 2017.

23

Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Defendant in Superior Court. Plaintiff’s

24

Complaint alleges class action claims for (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay

25

overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to permit rest breaks; (5) failure to

26

provide accurate wage statements; (6) failure to pay wages due upon separation of employment;

27

and (7) unfair business practices. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on his own behalf as well as all

28

non-exempt employees employed by Defendant in California within the four years prior to the

1

filing of the action. Defendant removed the case to this Court arguing that the Court has

2

jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”).

3

A defendant may remove a civil action from state court to federal court if original

4

jurisdiction would have existed in the federal court at the time the complaint was filed. 28 U.S.C.

5

§ 1441(a). “The burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction falls on the party

6

invoking removal.” Marin Gen. Hosp. v. Modesto & Empire Traction Co., 581 F.3d 941, 944 (9th

7

Cir. 2009) (citing Toumajian v. Frailey, 135 F.3d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1998)).

8
9

CAFA gives federal courts diversity jurisdiction to hear class actions when (1) the “matter
in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” (2) “any

10

member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant,” and (3) the

11

plaintiff’s putative class includes at least 100 members. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). “[A] defendant’s

12

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

13

the jurisdictional threshold” but when that allegation is challenged by the plaintiff, “evidence

14

establishing the amount is required . . . .” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, --

15

U.S. --, 135 S.Ct. 547, 554 (2014). The defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence

16

that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and may present summary-judgment-type

17

evidence to do so. Ibarra v. Manheim Investments, Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015).

18

“[A] damages assessment may require a chain of reasoning that includes assumptions. When that

19

is so, those assumptions cannot be pulled from thin air, but need some reasonable ground

20

underlying them.” Id. at 1199.

21

The parties do not dispute the minimum diversity or numerosity elements of CAFA.

22

Accordingly, the only issue is whether the amount in controversy exceeds the $5,000,000

23

jurisdictional threshold. Defendant alleged in the Notice of Removal that the amount in

24

controversy did exceed the threshold, and Plaintiff challenged that allegation in the Motion.

25

Defendant has presented various calculations based on the declaration of its payroll manager and

26

assumptions regarding Plaintiff’s claims. For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that

27

Defendant failed to meet its burden to show there is more than $5,000,000 in controversy.

28

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Defendant failed to pay class members minimum wage
2

1

and overtime “when [Defendants] rounded Plaintiff’s and class members’ time punches to

2

Defendants’ benefit, among other things.” (Compl. ¶¶ 37, 45). Defendant argues that the

3

minimum wage claim reasonably puts $1,029,189.12 at issue and the overtime claim reasonably

4

puts $5,273,689.68 at issue. To reach these figures, Defendant assumes that each employee was

5

denied one hour of minimum wage compensation and one hour of overtime per week. However,

6

Plaintiff’s Complaint bases these claims on rounding errors. It strikes this Court as unreasonable

7

to assume that Defendant incorrectly rounded Plaintiff’s hours by two hours per week. It is

8

unlikely that every class member will have worked overtime every week of the class period.

9

Though Defendant cites to its payroll manager’s declaration, the manager provides no facts to

10

support these assumptions. The declaration simply calculates the total number of employees, pay

11

periods, pay checks, etc. Accordingly, because Defendant has not provided facts to support its

12

assumptions underlying its calculations, with respect to the first two claims, the Court finds that

13

Defendant failed to meet its burden by a preponderance of the evidence.

14

Defendant next argues that Plaintiff’s third and fourth causes of action for meal and rest

15

period violations place $5,688,089.57 at issue. To reach this amount, Defendant assumes the claim

16

states that one meal period and one rest period were missed for each work day for every class

17

member. (Opp. at 19). Defendant then assumes a 20% violation rate resulting in an assumption

18

“that each putative class member was denied a single meal period and a single rest period out of

19

every five shifts worked.” (Id). Defendant cites no facts to support this assumption nor does the

20

Complaint allege support for such violations. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff and class

21

members did not receive compliant meal or rest periods because the periods were cut short, they

22

were not authorized, or class members were required to work during them. These allegations say

23

nothing of the number of missed periods. They could just as well support an assumption of one

24

missed meal period and one missed rest period every other week, or one period missed every

25

month, or both periods missed every year. See Armstrong v. Ruan Transp. Corp., 2016 WL

26

6267931, at *3 (C.D. Cal. October 25, 2016)(No “logical basis” to assume one missed meal and

27

rest period per workweek where complaint alleged class members were denied “lawful” meal and

28

rest periods.). As with the minimum wage and overtime claims, Defendant presented no factual
3

1

support for its assumptions. Accordingly, Defendant has failed to meet its burden to prove the

2

amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence.
Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action for wage statement violations puts

3
4

$1,162,550 in controversy. To reach this calculation Defendant assumed violations in each and

5

every one of the 23,251 wage statements issued during the statutory period. This assumes a 100%

6

violation rate. Courts have found such an assumption to be unreasonable. See e.g. Rosales v.

7

Staples Contract & Commercial, Inc., 2015 WL 4537577, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 27, 2015);

8

Armstrong, 2016 WL 6267931, at *3. Here, this violation rate is unsupported by facts offered by

9

the Defendant or the allegations in the Complaint. Accordingly, Defendant has failed to meet its

10

burden to prove the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence.
Finally, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action for waiting time penalties

11
12

under Labor Code section 203(a) places $3,901,132.80 in controversy. To reach this calculation,

13

Defendant assumes that each of the 664 former employees would be entitled to 30 days of pay for

14

8 hour shifts at the average hourly rate of $24.48. Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants willfully

15

failed to pay Waiting Time Subclass members all their earned wages upon termination . . . .”

16

(Compl. at ¶74). This allegation does not claim that every employee who was fired was not paid

17

earned wages in a timely manner. As before, those allegations are not supported by factual

18

evidence presented by Defendant or the allegations in the Complaint and rely on a 100% violation

19

rate. Accordingly, Defendant failed to meet its burden to prove the amount in controversy by a

20

preponderance of the evidence as to the sixth cause of action.
Defendant contends that Dart Cherokee requires both sides to present evidence supporting

21
22

the amount-in-controversy calculations. Though Dart Cherokee indicates that both sides may

23

produce evidence in support of their respective calculations, it did not change the burden of proof

24

on motions to remand. Rwomwijhu v. SMX, LLC, 2017 WL 124131, at *2 n.2 (C.D. Cal. March 3,

25

2017).

26

The Court recognizes that Defendant’s burden of proof to show an amount in controversy

27

above five-million dollars puts it in a difficult position. Armstrong, 2016 WL 6267931, at *7

28

(“Should defendants stray too far right—by providing minimal or speculative evidence for their
4

1

alleged violations—they risk losing the ability to litigate in federal court under CAFA. On the

2

other hand, should defendants stray too far left–by providing ample evidence of their alleged

3

violations—they may be admitting liability and ultimately lose their case.”). However, the burden

4

of proof in support of removal lies with the party asserting the removal jurisdiction. Though

5

CAFA encourages federal jurisdiction over class action complaints, it does not change this burden.

6

Accordingly, because Defendant did not meet its burden for the purposes of removal, the Motion

7

to Remand is granted.

8
9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 14)
is GRANTED.

10
11

Dated: August 8, 2017.

12
13
14
15

___________________________________
MANUEL L. REAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5