Louis Geiger et al v. Charter Communications, Inc. et al

Filing 12

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS)- ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Dolly M. Gee. Defendants are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be remanded to Los Angeles County Super ior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant shall file a response by no later than January 23, 2018. Failure to timely file a satisfactory response by this deadline will result in the remand of this action. Plaintiffs shall file a reply, if any, by January 30, 2018. Each party's brief, exclusive of supporting declarations, shall not exceed 10 pages. (iv)

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

Date

CV 18-158-DMG (GJSx)

Title Louis Geiger, et al. v. Charter Communications, Inc., et al.
Present: The Honorable

January 16, 2018
Page

1 of 2

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 TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE
SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT
On November 17, 2017, Plaintiffs Louis Geiger, Christina Gomez, Amanda Haynes,
Priscilla Escarcega, and Gara Booten filed a Class Action Complaint in Los Angeles County
Superior Court against Defendants Charter Communications, Inc.; Charter Communications,
LLC; Spectrum Management Holding Company, LLC; and TWC Administration LLC
(“Complaint”). [Doc. # 1-1.] The Complaint alleges claims under the Private Attorneys General
Act (Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq.) and state law claims for failure to pay overtime wages, meal
break violations, rest break violations, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
waiting time penalties, violations of California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq., and
a preliminary and a permanent injunction. Compl. at 1. On January 8, 2018, all four Defendants
removed the action to this Court, asserting jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28
U.S.C. § 1332(d) (“CAFA”).1 [Doc. # 1.]
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), a district court shall have original jurisdiction over a
class action where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000 and any
member of a proposed class is a citizen of a state different from that of any defendant.
Furthermore, under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), an action may be removed from a state court to a
federal district court if the latter would have had “original jurisdiction” over the action had it
been filed in that court.
“The burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction falls on the party invoking
removal.” Marin v. Gen. Hosp. v. Modesto & Empire Traction Co., 581 F.3d 941, 944 (9th Cir.
2009). With regard to diversity jurisdiction, a district court “may ‘require parties to submit
summary-judgment-type evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time of
removal.’” Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting
1

Defendants claim that Plaintiffs did not serve Defendant Charter Communications, LLC until
December 8, 2017. Carr Decl. at ¶ 2 [Doc. # 1-3].
CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk KT

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

CV 18-158-DMG (GJSx)

Title Louis Geiger, et al. v. Charter Communications, Inc., et al.

Date

January 16, 2018
Page

2 of 2

Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335–36 (5th Cir. 1995)). Further, “a defendant
cannot establish removal jurisdiction by mere speculation and conjecture, with unreasonable
assumptions.” See Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015).
Here, Defendants’ assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 is
predicated on the assumption that Plaintiffs’ post-removal attorneys’ fees may be included in that
calculation. See Removal Notice at ¶¶ 23.e–f (claiming that the inclusion of post-removal
attorneys’ fees increases the amount in controversy from $4,958,112.17 to $6,197,640.60).
Nonetheless, the Court observes that there is a “split as to whether a court should consider only
attorneys’ fees incurred as of the time of removal or fees reasonably likely to be incurred after
the date of removal.” See Bigby v. DS Waters of Am. Inc., No. CV 12-01362 MMM CWX, 2013
WL 394876, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2013) (collecting cases). Therefore, the parties should
address whether the Court may consider post-removal attorneys’ fees when determining the
amount in controversy.
Accordingly, because it is not clear that the amount in controversy requirement has been
satisfied, Defendants are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be
remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Defendant shall file a response by no later than January 23, 2018. Failure to timely file a
satisfactory response by this deadline will result in the remand of this action. Plaintiffs shall
file a reply, if any, by January 30, 2018. Each party’s brief, exclusive of supporting
declarations, shall not exceed 10 pages.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk KT