Carlos Castellon et al v. Penn Ridge Transportation, Inc et al

Filing 38

ORDER by Judge Andrew J. Guilford Granting 20 Motion to Remand. Case remanded to Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, Case number CIVS1508746. (see document for details). Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (dro)

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

SACV 17-00149 AG (DTBx)

Title

CARLOS CASTELLON ET AL. v. PENN-RIDGE TRANSPORTATION,
INC. ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

April 10, 2017

ANDREW J. GUILFORD

Lisa Bredahl
Deputy Clerk
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Proceedings:

Date

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

[IN CHAMBERS] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
REMAND

Defendant Penn-Ridge Transportation, Inc. has removed this wage-and-hour class action,
for a third time, under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).
Plaintiff Carlos Castellon moves to remand, arguing that Defendant’s third notice of removal
was untimely. The Court GRANTS the motion to remand. (Dkt. No. 20.)
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” and they possess “only that power
authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S.
375, 377 (1994). The Constitution provides, in Article III, § 2, that “[t]he judicial Power [of
the United States] shall extend . . . to all Cases . . . between Citizens of different States.” And
Congress has authorized district courts to exercise jurisdiction over certain class actions, if
the class has more than 100 members, the parties are minimally diverse, and the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2)(A), (5)(B); Dart Cherokee Basin
Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 552 (2014). “Nothing is to be more jealously
guarded by a court than its jurisdiction.” See United States v. Ceja-Prado, 333 F.3d 1046, 1051
(9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 3

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

SACV 17-00149 AG (DTBx)

Date

April 10, 2017

Title

CARLOS CASTELLON ET AL. v. PENN-RIDGE TRANSPORTATION,
INC. ET AL.

Successive Removals. The Court isn’t convinced that Defendant’s third notice of removal was
permissible, or that anything relevant has changed in the last two years. A successive removal
petition is appropriate only upon a “relevant change of circumstances,”—that is, “when
subsequent pleadings or events reveal a new and different ground for removal.” Reyes v. Dollar
Tree Stores, Inc., 781 F.3d 1185, 1188 (9th Cir. 2015) (listing, as examples, an intervening
change in law or an amended complaint); see also Gyorke-Takatri v. Nestle USA, Inc., No.
16-CV-03893-WHO, 2016 WL 5514756, at *2–4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2016). For good
reason. Courts have long recognized that removal in diversity cases operates to “the
prejudice of state court jurisdiction.” See In re La Providencia Dev. Corp., 406 F.2d 251, 252 (1st
Cir. 1969). “[I]n the interest of judicial economy . . . and in recognition of principles of
comity,” federal courts are wary of interfering with state court proceedings and loathe to see
cases “ricochet back and forth.” Id.; see also Harris v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689,
698 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that courts should “gaurd[] against premature and protective
removals and minimize[] the potential for a cottage industry of removal litigation”). Just so
here. Defendant hasn’t sufficiently address the issue of successive removals or identify any
relevant change in circumstances—either in its notice of removal, its opposition papers, or at
the hearing. True, Congress “enacted [CAFA] to facilitate adjudication of certain class
actions in federal court.” See Dart Cherokee, 135 S. Ct. at 554. But, as always, the burden of
establishing jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. See Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at
377. This Court will not presume otherwise.
Timeliness. The parties dispute whether Defendant’s third notice of removal was timely under
CAFA. A 30-day removal period is triggered if the initial pleading does not indicate that the
case is removable, and the defendant receives “a copy of an amended pleading, motion,
order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or
has become removable.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3). Although the Court need not decide this
issue, it’s persuaded for the reasons stated in Plaintiff’s motion, that the record contained
figures sufficient to establish an amount in controversy exceeding $5 million—more than 30
days before January 26, 2017. As Plaintiff correctly points out, a defendant may not “ignore
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 3

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

SACV 17-00149 AG (DTBx)

Date

April 10, 2017

Title

CARLOS CASTELLON ET AL. v. PENN-RIDGE TRANSPORTATION,
INC. ET AL.

pleadings or other documents from which removability may be ascertained and seek removal
only when it becomes strategically advantageous for it to do so.” Roth v. CHA Hollywood Med.
Ctr., L.P., 720 F.3d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 2013). Further, CAFA “requires a defendant to apply
a reasonable amount of intelligence in ascertaining removability.” Kuxhausen v. BMW Fin.
Servs. NA LLC, 707 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2013).
Request for attorney fees. The Court denies Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees. Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(c), “an order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual
expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” But “[a]bsent unusual
circumstances, courts may award attorney’s fees under [28 U.S.C.] § 1447(c) only where the
removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Martin v. Franklin
Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). Because Defendant’s basis for removing this case to
federal court was not “objectively unreasonable,” each party shall bear its own costs.
Because Defendant has failed to identify a relevant change in circumstances, the Court
GRANTS the motion remand. (Dkt. No. 20.)
:
Initials of
Preparer

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 3 of 3

lmb

0