Richard Sinohui v. CEC Entertainment, Inc.

Filing 19

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge Josephine L. Staton denying 12 Motion to Remand Case to State Court. Before the Court is a Motion to Remand Action to State Court filed by Plaintiff Richard Sinohui. (Mot., Doc. 12.) Defendant CEC En tertainment, Inc. opposed, and Plaintiff replied. (Opp., Doc. 15; Reply, Doc. 17.) The Court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. R. 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing set for February 27, 2015, at 2:30 p.m. is VACATED. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion. (see document for details). (dro)

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. EDCV 14-2516-JLS (KKx)
Title: Richard Sinohui v. CEC Entertainment, Inc.

Date: February 26, 2015

Present: HONORABLE JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Terry Guerrero
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:

Not Present

N/A
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND (Doc. 12)
Before the Court is a Motion to Remand Action to State Court filed by Plaintiff
Richard Sinohui. (Mot., Doc. 12.) Defendant CEC Entertainment, Inc. opposed, and
Plaintiff replied. (Opp., Doc. 15; Reply, Doc. 17.) The Court finds this matter
appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. R. 7-15.
Accordingly, the hearing set for February 27, 2015, at 2:30 p.m. is VACATED. For the
following reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion.
I.

BACKGROUND

On October 10, 2014, Plaintiff Richard Sinohui filed this putative class action suit
in Riverside County Superior Court against Defendant CEC Entertainment, Inc. (Compl.,
Doc. 1-2.) Sinohui alleges that CEC improperly classified him and other similarly
situated employees as exempt and thus violated the California Labor Code when it failed
to (1) pay them overtime for all overtime hours worked, (2) provide meal and rest
periods, (3) provide accurate itemized wage statements, (4) reimburse for business
expenses, and (5) timely pay wages upon separation from employment. (Id. ¶ 6.)
Sinohui alleges that this conduct also violates California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. (Id. ¶¶ 139-147.)
On December 5, 2014, CEC removed the case to this Court on the basis of both
diversity jurisdiction and the Class Action Fairness Act. (Notice of Removal, Doc. 1, ¶¶
6-28, 29-38.)
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
1

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. EDCV 14-2516-JLS (KKx)
Title: Richard Sinohui v. CEC Entertainment, Inc.

Date: February 26, 2015

On December 30, 2014, Sinohui filed the instant Motion to Remand, arguing that
CEC has not established that the Court possesses jurisdiction over this matter on either
basis. (Mot.) Sinohui also requests attorneys’ fees on the grounds that CEC’s removal of
this action lacked any “objectively reasonable basis.” (Mot. at 11-12.)
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

When reviewing a notice of removal, “it is to be presumed that a cause lies outside
the limited jurisdiction of the federal courts and the burden of establishing the contrary
rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039,
1042 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th
Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted)). Courts “strictly construe the removal statute
against removal jurisdiction,” and “the defendant always has the burden of establishing
that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
“[W]here it is unclear or ambiguous from the face of a state-court complaint
whether the requisite amount in controversy is pled,” the removing defendant bears the
burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy
exceeds the jurisdictional amount. Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696,
699 (9th Cir. 2007). “Under this burden, the defendant must provide evidence
establishing that it is ‘more likely than not’ that the amount in controversy exceeds that
amount.” Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). On a
motion to remand, the Court “consider[s] facts presented in the removal petition as well
as any summary-judgment-type evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the
time of removal.” Valdez v. All State Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004)
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The Court weighs Defendant’s evidence
against any countervailing evidence showing that the amount in controversy falls below
$75,000. See Metro. Stevedore Co. v. Rambo, 521 U.S. 121, 137 n.9 (1997) (When
applying the preponderance standard, a court considers “how convincing the evidence in
favor of a fact [is] in comparison with the evidence against it before that fact may be
found.”).

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
2

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. EDCV 14-2516-JLS (KKx)
Title: Richard Sinohui v. CEC Entertainment, Inc.

III.

Date: February 26, 2015

DISCUSSION

Sinohui argues that remand is proper because CEC has failed to demonstrate that
the amount in controversy in this matter exceeds the $5,000,000 jurisdictional minimum
under CAFA. (Mot. at 2.) As CEC notes, however, Sinohui’s Motion ignores its
alternate basis for removal – diversity jurisdiction. (Opp. at 4; Notice of Removal ¶¶ 2938.)
Diversity jurisdiction exists where all plaintiffs are diverse from all defendants and
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). While the Complaint
does not properly specify either party’s citizenship, CEC demonstrates in its Notice of
Removal that it is a citizen of Kansas and Texas while Sinohui – the sole named Plaintiff
– is a citizen of California. (Notice of Removal ¶¶ 9-13; see also Decl. of David A.
Deck, Doc. 1-5, ¶¶ 2-4; Decl. of Lindsey Thomas, Doc. 1-6, ¶ 12.) Sinohui does not
address this in his Motion or Reply. Accordingly, the Court finds CEC has adequately
demonstrated that diversity of citizenship exists. See, e.g., Bashir v. Boeing Co., 245 F.
App’x 574, 575 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that the party seeking removal bears the burden of
establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the diversity of citizenship).
As to the amount in controversy, Sinohui’s Complaint does not allege an amount
in controversy. In its Notice of Removal, however, CEC provides data and calculations
showing that Sinohui’s Complaint puts into controversy at least $89,606.60 as to him
individually, consisting of $62,961.60 in unpaid overtime, $3,923.10 in waiting time
penalties, $1,450 in inaccurate wage statement penalties, $9,156 in missed meal break
penalties, $9,156 in missed rest break penalties, and $3,000 in Private Attorney General
Act penalties. (Notice of Removal ¶¶ 31-38.) This figure does not include CEC’s
potential liability for unreimbursed business expenses, liquidated damages, or attorneys’
fees. (Id. ¶ 38.) Once again, Sinohui fails to address these calculations or provide any
evidence to the contrary.1 Accordingly, the Court finds CEC has adequately
1

In arguing that CEC has not demonstrated that CAFA’s $5 million amount in
controversy requirement is met, Sinohui attacks CEC’s assumption that an average
general manager worked 55 hours per week. (Mot. at 7-8.) To the extent this objection
can be construed as also applying to CEC’s calculation of the amount in controversy as to
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
3

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. EDCV 14-2516-JLS (KKx)
Title: Richard Sinohui v. CEC Entertainment, Inc.

Date: February 26, 2015

demonstrated that more than $75,000 is in controversy. See Guglielmino, 506 F.3d at 699
(applying a preponderance of the evidence standard to the amount in controversy where
the state-court complaint does not allege a specific amount of damages).
Sinohui’s sole objection to CEC’s removal of this action on diversity grounds
comes in his Reply, in which he argues that “given that the present action is a class
action, there is only one relevant standard to meet to justify the . . .[C]ourt’s jurisdiction
over this matter so long as it remains a class action . . . [t]he Class Action Fairness Act.”
(Reply at 13.) This objection is misplaced; nothing in CAFA prevents a defendant from
removing a putative class action on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, in which case the
Court looks only to the named parties to determine whether jurisdiction exists. See
Pruell v. Caritas Christi, 645 F.3d 81, 83 (1st Cir. 2011) (“The usual rule in class actions
is that to establish subject matter jurisdiction one looks only to the named plaintiffs and
their claims”); Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 941 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[A] class
action, when filed, includes only the claims of the named plaintiff or plaintiffs. The
claims of unnamed class members are added to the action later, when the action is
certified as a class under Rule 23.”).
In sum, CEC has met its burden of demonstrating that removal is proper on the
basis of diversity jurisdiction. The Court therefore need not reach Sinohui’s contention
that CEC has failed to establish that jurisdiction is proper under CAFA. Accordingly,
Sinohui’s request for attorneys’ fees also is denied. See Martin v. Franklin Capital
Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005).

Sinohui’s individual claims, it fails. The Complaint alleges that general managers
“consistently worked over ten (10) hours per work period . . . .” (Compl. ¶ 68.) This
allegation, taken together with the declaration and supporting documentation from CEC’s
Regional Human Resources Manager that general managers typically worked 50-60
hours per week, is sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the
Complaint places into controversy up to 20 hours per week in unpaid overtime as to
Sinohui. (Lindsey Decl. ¶ 11; id., Ex. A.) See Guglielmino, 506 F.3d at 699 (“[W]here it
is unclear or ambiguous from the face of a state-court complaint whether the requisite
amount in controversy is pled[,] . . . we apply a preponderance of the evidence
standard.”).
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
4

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. EDCV 14-2516-JLS (KKx)
Title: Richard Sinohui v. CEC Entertainment, Inc.

IV.

Date: February 26, 2015

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion.

Initials of Preparer: tg

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
5