Kimberly Gonzalez v. Randstad Professionals US, LLC et al

Filing 25

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REMAND TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, CASE NO. CIV22STCV21991 11 by Judge Josephine L. Staton: granting 11 MOTION to Remand Case to State Court Case Remanded to Superior Court of CA, County of Los Angeles 22STCV21991. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.) MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (rolm)

JS -6

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 2:22-cv-05744-JLS-PD
Title: Kimberly Gonzalez v. Randstad Professionals US, LLC et al

Date: November 18, 2022

Present: HONORABLE JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

V. R. Vallery
Deputy Clerk
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
Not Present

N/A
Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT, CASE NO. CIV22STCV21991 (Doc. 11)
Before the Court is Plaintiff Kimberly Gonzalez’s Motion to Remand. (Mot., Doc.
11.) Defendant Randstad Professionals US, LLC (“Randstad”) opposed, and Plaintiff
replied. (Opp., Doc. 21; Reply, Doc. 22.) The Court finds this matter appropriate for
decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. R. 7-15. Accordingly,
the hearing set for December 9, 2022 at 10:30 a.m. is VACATED. Having considered
the parties’ arguments, and for the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion
and REMANDS this matter, Case No. CIV22STCV21991, to Los Angeles County
Superior Court.
I.

BACKGROUND

This is an employment action brought against Defendants Randstad Professionals
US, LLC, d/b/a Randstad Life Sciences, PerkinElmer Genetics, Inc., PerkinElmer, Inc.,
PerkinElmer Health Sciences, Inc., and PerkinElmer Informatics, Inc. (“Defendants”).
(Complaint, Ex. A to Notice of Removal (“Compl.”) ¶ 1, Doc. 1.) Plaintiff Kimberly
Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) seeks to represent a class defined as:
All current and former non-exempt employees of any of the Defendants who
performed work for PERKINELMER GENETICS, INC.; PERKINELMER,
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
1

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 2:22-cv-05744-JLS-PD
Title: Kimberly Gonzalez v. Randstad Professionals US, LLC et al

Date: November 18, 2022

INC.; PERKINELMER HEALTH SCIENCES, INC.; and PERKINELMER
INFORMATICS, INC. within the State of California at any time
commencing four (4) years preceding the filing of Plaintiff’s complaint.”
(Id. ¶ 16.) Gonzalez alleges that she was employed by Defendants “as a clinical
laboratory technologist and Next Generation Sequencing (‘NGS’) worker from
approximately 2020 to November 2, 2021.” (Id. ¶ 21.) She alleges that Defendants
“engaged in an ongoing and systematic scheme of wage abuse against their hourly-paid
or non-exempt employees” that included, among other things, “failing to pay them for all
hours worked, including minimum and overtime wages” and “routinely fail[ing] to permit
[those employees] to take timely and duty-free meal periods and rest periods in violation
of California law.” (Id. ¶ 25.)
Gonzalez brings nine claims against Defendants: (1) failure to pay overtime in
violation of Cal. Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198; (2) failure to provide meal periods in
violation of Cal. Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512(a); (3) failure to authorize and permit rest
breaks in violation of Cal. Labor Code § 226.7; (4) failure to pay minimum wage in
violation of Cal. Labor Code §§ 1194, 1197, and 1197.1; (5) failure to timely pay wages
upon separation of employment in violation of Cal. Labor Code §§ 201, 202, and 203; (6)
failure to timely pay wages during employment in violation of Cal. Labor Code §§ 204
and 210; (7) failure to provide accurate wage statements in violation of Cal. Labor Code
§ 226(a); (8) failure to reimburse necessary business expenses in violation of Cal. Labor
Code §§ 2800 and 2802; and (9) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (Compl. ¶¶ 47–111.)
Gonzalez initially filed her action in the Superior Court of California for the
County of Los Angeles on July 7, 2022. (Notice of Removal (“Notice”) ¶ 1, Doc. 1.)
Randstad received service of process on July 13, 2022 and timely removed the case to
this Court on August 12, 2022 under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), codified
in relevant part at 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). (Id. ¶¶ 2–6, 10.) On September 19, 2022,
Gonzalez moved to remand this case to the Los Angeles County Superior Court. (Mot.)
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
2

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 2:22-cv-05744-JLS-PD
Title: Kimberly Gonzalez v. Randstad Professionals US, LLC et al

II.

Date: November 18, 2022

LEGAL STANDARD

“[CAFA] vests federal courts with original diversity jurisdiction over class actions
if: (1) the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, (2) the proposed class
consists of at least 100 class members, (3) the primary defendants are not States, State
officials, or other governmental entities against whom the district court may be
foreclosed from ordering relief, and (4) any class member is a citizen of a state different
from any defendant.” Mortley v. Express Pipe & Supply Co., 2018 WL 708115, at *1
(C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2018) (Staton, J.) (citing Serrano v. 180 Connect, Inc., 478 F.3d 1018,
1020–21 (9th Cir. 2007)); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).1
“In determining the amount in controversy [under CAFA], courts first look to the
complaint. Generally, ‘the sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently
made in good faith.’” Ibarra v. Manheim Investments, Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th
Cir. 2015) (quoting St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289
(1938)). Where damages are not explicitly pleaded or evident from the face of the
complaint, and federal jurisdiction is questioned on that basis, “the defendant seeking
removal bears the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the aggregate
amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.” Id. (citing Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility
Services LLC, 728 F.3d 975, 981 (9th Cir. 2013)). As this Court explained in Mortley,
“[a] defendant’s preponderance burden ‘is not daunting, as courts recognize that under
this standard, a removing defendant is not obligated to research, state, and prove the
plaintiff’s claims for damages.’” 2018 WL 708115, at *2 (quoting Korn v. Polo Ralph
Lauren Corp., 536 F. Supp. 2d 1199, 1204–05 (E.D. Cal. 2008)); and see Unutoa v.
Interstate Hotels & Resorts, Inc., 2015 WL 898512, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2015) (“[A]
removing defendant is not required to go so far as to prove Plaintiff’s case for him by
proving the actual rates of violation.”). This is in line with the Ninth Circuit’s
characterization of “amount in controversy” as “simply an estimate of the total amount in
1

Moreover, “no antiremoval presumption attends cases invoking CAFA, which
Congress enacted to facilitate adjudication of certain class actions in federal court.” Dart
Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014).
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
3

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 2:22-cv-05744-JLS-PD
Title: Kimberly Gonzalez v. Randstad Professionals US, LLC et al

Date: November 18, 2022

dispute, not a prospective assessment of defendant’s liability.” Lewis v. Verizon
Communications, Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 400 (9th Cir. 2010). The Ninth Circuit has also
held that “CAFA’s [amount-in-controversy] requirements are to be tested by
consideration of [1] real evidence and [2] the reality of what is at stake in the litigation,
using [3] reasonable assumptions underlying the defendant’s theory of damages
exposure.” Ibarra, 775 F.3d at 1198 (emphasis added). Hence, beyond actual evidence,
district courts may consider context and apply reasonable conjecture when evaluating a
removal premised on CAFA jurisdiction.
III.

DISCUSSION

Gonzalez argues that this action must be remanded because Randstad has failed to
establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds
$5,000,000.00. (Mot. at 5–18.) Specifically, Gonzalez argues that Randstad has no
support for its amount-in-controversy calculations, which rest on unreasonable
assumptions and figures “pulled out of thin air.” (Id.)
Randstad argues that its evidence is adequate to support its amount-in-controversy
calculations. (Opp. at 3–4, 12–13.) Randstad has submitted no additional evidence in
opposition and points to the evidence that it submitted at the time of removal. (Id. at 3,
12–13, citing Amato Decl., Doc. 3.) Specifically, Randstad relies on a declaration by
Heather Amato, a paralegal in the Law Department of Randstad General Partner (US),
LLC, which holds a 0.1 percent interest in Randstad. (Amato Decl. ¶ 2.) Amato testifies
to the number of putative class members, the total number of weeks that they worked
during the class period, and their average hourly pay. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 6–10.) Amato bases her
calculations on Randstad’s payroll, timekeeping, and human resources management
systems maintained in the ordinary course of business. (Id. ¶ 3.) According to Amato,
during the putative class period Randstad employed approximately 154 putative class
members, who worked a total of approximately 5,329 workweeks at an average hourly
pay rate of $36.81. (Id. ¶¶ 6–8.) Amato’s declaration contains no information regarding
estimated violation rates. Randstad contends that its assumed violation rates are
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
4

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 2:22-cv-05744-JLS-PD
Title: Kimberly Gonzalez v. Randstad Professionals US, LLC et al

Date: November 18, 2022

reasonable because “[a]ssuming a 100 percent violation rate is proper when a complaint
alleges a policy of noncompliance.” (Opp. at 4.)
“As seemingly is always the case in wage-and-hour lawsuits attempting to find
their way to federal court, violation rates are key to the calculations necessary to reach
the $5,000,001 amount-in-controversy figure CAFA requires.” Toribio v. ITT Aerospace
Controls LLC, 2019 WL 4254935, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2019). Here, Randstad
estimates a 100% violation rate for the alleged meal and rest period violations, unpaid
overtime violations, waiting time penalties, untimely wage violations, and wage
statement violations. (Notice ¶ 30; Opp. at 4–11.) Randstad cites to several district court
cases that found that allegations of a defendant’s policy of noncompliance with wage and
hour laws such as Gonzalez alleges against Randstad here justified assuming a 100%
violation rate. (See Opp. at 5–6.)
Courts disagree about the violation rate that can be assumed where, as here, the
Complaint does not allege any specific violation rate. Compare Sanchez v. Russell
Sigler, Inc., 2015 WL 12765359, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2015) (acknowledging the
split and holding that “[e]ven following Ibarra,” it was reasonable to assume a 100%
violation rate where “Plaintiff alleges that ‘at all material times,’ Defendant failed to
provide putative class members with uninterrupted meal and rest periods as required by
California law”) with Armstrong v. Ruan Transp. Corp., 2016 WL 6267931, at *3
(rejecting defendant’s one-violation-a-week assumption because (1) plaintiff’s allegation
that defendant failed to provide “all legally required” breaks did not amount to an
allegation that defendant failed to provide each and every break, and (2) defendant
proffered no evidence in support of the violation rate).
This Court has grappled with the best method to account for the amorphous
“violation rate” calculation. In earlier cases, the Court tried to divine what might be a
reasonable violation rate based on the complaint’s language describing the defendantemployer’s policies. See, e.g., Mortley, 2018 WL 708115, at *4, (assuming two
violations per week was reasonable); Mariscal v. Arizona Tile, LLC, 2021 WL 1400892,
at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2021) (Staton, J.) (assuming a 25% meal and rest break
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
5

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 2:22-cv-05744-JLS-PD
Title: Kimberly Gonzalez v. Randstad Professionals US, LLC et al

Date: November 18, 2022

violation rate was reasonable). More recently, however, this Court has declined to allow
defendants “to translate vague ‘pattern and practice’ language in a complaint into a
purportedly reasonable violation level without providing any evidence at all.” Cackin v.
Ingersoll-Rand Indus. U.S., Inc., 2021 WL 2222217, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 2, 2021)
(Staton, J.); accord Gonzalez v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz L.P., 2022 WL 179292, at *3–4
(C.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2022) (Staton, J.).
As the Court has explained, an approach that “amounts to little more than plucking
a violation rate out of the air and calling it ‘reasonable”—is ‘a wasteful and silly, but
routine, exercise in mathematical fantasyland.’” Cackin, 2021 WL 2222217, at *3
(quoting Toribio, 2019 WL 4254935, at *3). If one is going to assume a violation rate
based on vague language in a complaint, then there is no basis for assuming that a 100%
or 50%—or even 25%—violation rate “is any more or less reasonable than a violation
rate of once per week or once per month.” Id. (citing Vanegas v. DHL Express (USA),
Inc., 2021 WL 1139743, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2021)). The Court continues to agree
with the observation of the Honorable George Wu:
Faced with a vague pleading, it seems to this Court that the much-moresensible route would be to try to pin Plaintiff down, in state court (with no
one-year time-limit staring Defendants in the face), with respect to what the
Complaint’s allegations actually mean with respect to violation rates.
Perhaps Defendants do this by serving interrogatories or requests for
admission, perhaps by deposition, perhaps by moving for a more definite
statement. Perhaps they simply get Plaintiff to identify what the violation
rates would be for Plaintiff, and then use that information as a sample to
extrapolate out the calculation for the entire class.
Toribio, 2019 WL 4254935, at *3.
Ultimately, it is Randstad’s burden to demonstrate a sufficient amount in
controversy by a preponderance of the evidence, and Randstad has failed to provide any
evidence to support its violation rate assumptions. Cf. id. at *4 (holding that it is the
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
6

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 2:22-cv-05744-JLS-PD
Title: Kimberly Gonzalez v. Randstad Professionals US, LLC et al

Date: November 18, 2022

defendant’s burden to prove a sufficient amount in controversy and that the plaintiff has
no obligation to offer competing figures); accord Cackin, 2021 WL 2222217, at *4.
Because Randstad has failed to meet its burden in proving that the amount in controversy
exceeds CAFA’s $5,000,000 threshold, Gonzalez’s Motion is GRANTED.
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Randstad has failed to establish that the amount in
controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS
Gonzalez’s Motion and REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles, Case No. CIV22STCV21991.

Initials of Deputy Clerk: vrv

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
7