Ronnie Newsom v. Dunbar Armored, Inc. et al

Filing 17

MINUTEZS OF IN CHAMBERS - ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Dolly M. Gee: On 8/30/2017, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause questioning Defendant's claim in the Removal Notice that this action satisfies 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a)'s amount in controversy requirement 13 . Because it remains "unclear what amount of damages the plaintiff has sought[,]" Defendant does not overcome the "strong presumption against removal[.]" See Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. Accordingly, this action is hereby REMANDED to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case Number BC664595. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6 ) Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk)

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

Date

CV 17-5128-DMG (PJWx)

Title Ronnie Newsom v. Dunbar Armored, Inc., et al.
Present: The Honorable

JS-6 / REMAND

September 15, 2017
Page

1 of 3

DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

KANE TIEN
Deputy Clerk

NOT REPORTED
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)
None Present

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES
COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

On August 30, 2017, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause questioning Defendant’s
claim in the Removal Notice that this action satisfies 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)’s amount in
controversy requirement. [Doc. # 13.] Subsequently, the parties each briefed this issue. Def.’s
Suppl. Br. [Doc. # 14]; Pl.’s Br. re Jurisdiction [Doc. # 15.] For the reasons discussed in this
Order, the Court concludes that Defendant fails to demonstrate that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000.
The Ninth Circuit “strictly construe[s] the removal statute against removal jurisdiction.”
See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “Federal jurisdiction [under that
statute] must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” See
id. (emphasis added). Put differently, there is a “strong presumption against removal” in the
context of traditional diversity jurisdiction. See id. “If it is unclear what amount of damages the
plaintiff has sought . . . then the defendant bears the burden of actually proving the facts to
support jurisdiction, including the jurisdictional amount.” Id. at 566–67.
Here, although Defendant advances seven arguments intended to establish that the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, Defendant’s position hinges upon one of two premises:
(1) the amount of overtime pay Plaintiff seeks is at least $100,620, calculated at $645 per week
(for at least 30 hours of unpaid overtime work each week) for his last three years of employment;
or (2) Plaintiff seeks to recover uncompensated meal and rest breaks of $494 to $602 per week
for every week during his last three years of employment.1 See Def.’s Suppl. Br. at 3–4.
1

Defendant also claims: (1) the Complaint explicitly states that it seeks in excess of $25,000 in special
damages, interest, and penalties; (2) Plaintiff requests up to $4,000 for his inaccurate wage statement claim and
waiting time penalties of at least $5,000; (3) if Plaintiff prevailed on his wrongful termination claim, his lost wages
at the time of removal would be at least $10,324; (4) the Complaint seeks recovery of between $19,780 and $22,926
for unpaid overtime and/or doubletime pay corresponding to each week worked between September 2016 and
CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk KT

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

CV 17-5128-DMG (PJWx)

Title Ronnie Newsom v. Dunbar Armored, Inc., et al.

JS-6 / REMAND

Date

September 15, 2017
Page

2 of 3

Defendant fails to establish that either of these assumptions are reasonable. With regard
to the first assumption, the Complaint does not appear to specify the number of weeks for which
Plaintiff was not paid for at least 30 hours of overtime work. The Complaint cryptically states
that “Plaintiff thereby requests payment of all accrued and owed unpaid wages consisting of at
least thirty (30) hours per week, at a rate of $21.50 per hour measured at time and a half, or $645
per week for every week he is entitled to claim under California Labor Code section 202 et seq.”
Compl. at ¶ 21 (emphasis added). Nonetheless, Defendant claims that another portion of the
Complaint “clarifies” that Plaintiff is actually alleging that he was not compensated at least 30
hours of overtime work during the last three years of his employment. See Def.’s Suppl. Br. at 3.
Specifically, Defendant relies upon the following averment: “Plaintiff worked more than eight
(8) hours in a workday and more than forty (40) hours in a workweek basically every week in the
last three years he was employed with Defendant.” See Compl. at ¶ 14 (emphasis added). Yet,
Defendant provides no explanation or supporting evidence showing that Plaintiff’s allegation
that he worked “more than forty (40) hours in a workweek” somehow equates to at least 30 hours
of unpaid overtime. See Def.’s Suppl. Br. at 1–4. Thus, this is an “unreasonable assumption[]”
that cannot support the invocation of this Court’s diversity jurisdiction.2 See Ibarra, 775 F.3d at
1197.
With respect to the calculation of the damages for uncompensated meal and rest breaks,
Defendant relies upon a portion of the Complaint that avers: “Plaintiff is to be compensated for
such rest and meal breaks at his overtime rate of $21.50 per hour, or a total of $494–$602 per
week for every week available to Plaintiff to make such a claim, including but not limited to his
last three (3) years of employment with Defendant.” See Def.’s Suppl. Br. at 3 (emphasis added)
(quoting Compl. at ¶ 37). This portion of the Complaint is quite ambiguous—it could be
interpreted as merely alleging that Plaintiff is entitled to meal and rest break compensation for
certain weeks he worked within the last three years of his employment, or as averring that
Plaintiff is entitled to meal and rest break compensation for every week he worked during the last
three years of his employment. Defendant selects the latter interpretation without explaining or
even acknowledging the ambiguity, or providing any evidence that Plaintiff worked sufficient
overtime during his final three years of employment to potentially trigger the obligation to pay
Plaintiff’s termination on February 23, 2017; and (5) Plaintiff requests “an unspecified amount of ‘punitive and
exemplary damages.’” See Def.’s Suppl. Br. at 2–4 (quoting Compl. at 13). Moreover, Defendant apparently
abandons the argument raised in its Removal Notice that “attorneys’ fees alone in this case will exceed $50,000[.]”
See Removal Notice at ¶ 19.d. (emphasis in original).
2

Further, Defendant apparently neglects to mention that its calculation of this overtime damages figure is
partially duplicative of its calculation of Plaintiff’s overtime and/or doubletime damages accruing between
September 2016 and his final day of employment.
CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk KT

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

CV 17-5128-DMG (PJWx)

Title Ronnie Newsom v. Dunbar Armored, Inc., et al.

JS-6 / REMAND

Date

September 15, 2017
Page

3 of 3

Plaintiff at least $494/week for every week during that three-year period.3 See Def.’s Suppl. Br.
at 1–4. Because it remains “unclear what amount of damages the plaintiff has sought[,]”
Defendant does not overcome the “strong presumption against removal[.]” See Gaus, 980 F.2d
at 566.
Accordingly, this action is hereby REMANDED to the Los Angeles County Superior
Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

Additionally, Defendant provides no explanation or evidence showing that it is reasonable to assume that
Plaintiff “did not receive his required meal and rest breaks for . . . one-half of . . . the last three years,” which would
yield damages between $38,532 and $46,956. See Def.’s Suppl. Br. at 4.
CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk KT