Claudia Guzman Lopez v. CJ Logistics America, LLC et al

Filing 19

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REMAND [DKT. 15], as to Claudia Guzman Lopez by Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes: Lopezs Motion [Dkt. 15] is GRANTED and CJ Logistics is ORDERED to pay Lopezs attorney fees in the amount of $2,100. Further, the Court ORDERS this case remanded to the Superior Court of the State ofCalifornia in and for the County of Riverside. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (shb)

1

J S -6

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

CLAUDIA GUZMAN LOPEZ,
Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

CJ LOGISTICS AMERICA, LLC, et
al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 5:22-cv-01738-SSS-KKx
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND [DKT. 15]

1

Before the Court is Plaintiff Claudia Guzman Lopez’s Motion to Remand

2

this Case to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of

3

Riverside (the “Motion”). [Dkt. 15]. In her Motion, Lopez further requests the

4

Court award her attorney fees. [Dkt. 15-1 at 10–11]. The Motion is fully briefed

5

and ripe for consideration. [Dkts. 15, 16 & 17].

6

Lopez’s Motion is GRANTED.

For the following reasons,

I. BACKGROUND

7
8

On July 13, 2022, Lopez initiated this action in state court. [Dkt. 1-1].

9

Lopez’s claims against Defendant CJ Logistics, LLC (“CJ Logistics”) include

10

(1) a violation of California Labor Code § 230.8; (2) a violation of the

11

California Family Rights Act, Gov. Code § 12945.2; (3) a violation of the

12

California Family Sick Leave Act; and (4) wrongful termination. [Dkt. 1-1].

13

Lopez alleges that she had been working at CJ Logistics since 2013 and was

14

fired in 2021 “because she took time off to care for her daughter.” [Dkt. 1-1 at

15

4, ¶¶5–8]. Lopez further alleges that she has suffered “extreme and severe

16

anguish, humiliation, anger, tension, anxiety, depression, lowered self-esteem,

17

sleeplessness, and emotional distress. [Dkt. 1-1 at 7, ¶32]. Lopez’s prayer for

18

relief includes requests for reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits,

19

prejudgment interest on all amounts claimed, general and compensatory

20

damages, special damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. [Dkt. 1-1 at

21

7–8].

22

On September 2, 2022, CJ Logistics filed a demurrer or, in the alternative,

23

motion to strike Lopez’s Complaint in state court (the “demurrer”). [Dkt. 15-2

24

at 3, ¶6]. On September 6, 2022, Lopez provided CJ Logistics with a settlement

25

demand for $1,285,064.60. [Dkt. 16 at 3]. On September 21, 2022, Lopez filed

26

her opposition to CJ Logistics’ demurrer. [Dkt. 15-2 at 3, ¶9]. On September

27

28, 2022, CJ Logistics filed its reply. [Dkt. 15-2 at 3, ¶10]. On October 4,

28
-2-

1

2022, one day before the demurrer was set to be heard, CJ Logistics removed

2

the action to this Court. [Dkt. 1]; [Dkt. 15-2 at 3, ¶11].

3
4

II. Legal Standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), “any civil action brought in a State court of

5

which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be

6

removed by the defendant. . .to the district court of the United States. . .” The

7

removal statutes are strictly construed and remand to the state court is to be

8

granted where there are doubts as to the right of removal. Jordan v. Nationstar

9

Mortg. LLC, 781 F.3d 1178, 1182 (9th Cir. 2015). District courts must remand

10

the case “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court

11

lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see also Smith v. Mylan,

12

Inc., 761 F.3d 1042, 1044 (9th Cir. 2014).

13

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446, defendants have two opportunities to file a

14

notice of removal. The first opportunity is “within 30 days after the receipt by

15

the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading

16

setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based.”

17

28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). “If no ground for removal is evident in that pleading,

18

the case is ‘not removable’ at that stage.” Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co.,

19

425 F.3d 689, 694 (9th Cir. 2005). The second opportunity is:

20
21
22
23

if the case stated by the initial pleading is not removable, a notice
of removal may be filed within 30 days after receipt by the
defendant, through service or otherwise, of 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.

24

28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3). Accordingly, where the complaint is indeterminate

25

about removal, defendants may remove the action within 30 days of receiving a

26

document or paper demonstrating the case is removable. Prado v. Dart

27

Container Corp. of California, 373 F. Supp. 3d 1281, 1285–86 (N.D. Cal.

28

2019). The Ninth Circuit further recognizes a third opportunity for defendant to
-3-

1

file a notice of removal: where, during defendant’s own investigation, the

2

defendant uncovers information sufficient to demonstrate removability after the

3

expiration of the two statutory 30-day windows. Jakuttis v. Allstate Indem. Co.,

4

No. EDCV 15-0624 JGB (KKx), 2015 WL 3442083, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 27,

5

2015).
III. Discussion

6

Lopez argues this action should be remanded to state court because CJ

7
8

Logistics failed to properly remove this action within the statutory 30-day

9

window. [Dkt. 15-1 at 6–7]. Further, Lopez argues that CJ Logistics waived its

10

statutory right to removal when it filed its demurrer in the state court

11

proceeding. [Dkt. 15-1 at 10]. CJ Logistics argues Lopez’s Motion should be

12

denied because its removal to this Court was timely and it did not waive its

13

statutory right to removal. [Dkt. 16 at 4]. The Court addresses these arguments,

14

as well as Lopez’s request for attorney fees, below.

15

A.

16

Timeliness of Removal
Lopez argues CJ Logistics’ removal was untimely because it was filed 78

17

days after it was served Lopez’s Complaint and therefore failed to meet the

18

statutory 30-day deadline. [Dkt. 15-1 at 9]. Specifically, Lopez contends that

19

the face of the Complaint made it clear that the amount in controversy exceeded

20

$75,000. [Dkt. 15-1 at 7–9]. CJ Logistics argues its removal was timely

21

because the Complaint failed to specify the amount in controversy. [Dkt. 16 at

22

4–7]. Further, CJ Logistics argues that once it became aware of the amount in

23

controversy, it filed its notice of removal within the required 30 days. [Dkt. 16

24

at 6–7]. For the following reasons, the Court finds that CJ Logistics’ removal

25

was untimely.

26

A defendant has the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Cal. ex

27

rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Ethridge,

28

861 F.2d at 1393). Where a complaint does not indicate the amount in
-4-

1

controversy, the removing defendant bears the burden of providing by a

2

preponderance of evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

3

Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Singer v.

4

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 376 (9th Cir. 1997)). Moreover,

5

a pleading need not identify a specific amount in controversy to trigger the first

6

30-day removal period pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). Kroske, 432 F.3d at

7

980. The time for removal commences when a defendant is able to

8

“intelligently ascertain” that a plaintiff’s claim exceeds $75,000. Jellinek v.

9

Advance Prods. & Sys., Inc., No. 10cv1226 JM (WMC), 2010 WL 3385998, at

10

*1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2010). “Thus, so long as the initial pleading enables the

11

defendant to intelligently ascertain removability, the case is removable, and the

12

thirty-day period begins at the time the defendant receives the complaint.”

13

Rodriguez v. Boeing Co., No. CV 14-04265-RSWL (AGRx), 2014 WL

14

3818108, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2014) (citing Mendoza v. Am. Airlines, No.

15

CV 10-7617 RSWL (JCx), 2010 WL 5376375, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2010).

16

Here, CJ Logistics’ removal was untimely. Lopez’s Complaint alleges

17

four causes of action stemming from her alleged wrongful termination from CJ

18

Logistics. [Dkt. 1-1 at 7–8]. Similar to Mendoza v. American Airlines, Inc.,

19

2010 WL 5376375, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2010), Lopez states that she is

20

seeking damages from loss of income, loss of earning capacity, and loss of job

21

opportunity. [Dkt. 1-1 at 6, ¶24]. As in Mendoza, here the types of damages

22

sought by Lopez make it “intelligently ascertainable that the amount in

23

controversy exceeds the minimum amount. . .” 2010 WL 5376375, at *3 (C.D.

24

Cal. Dec. 22, 2010); see also Sanchez v. AMCO Insurance Co., No. 1:19-cv-

25

01633-NONE-SKO, 2020 WL 5362406, at *5 (“The district courts in these

26

cases have found, for instance, that claims by former employees for backpay

27

and a range of other monetary damages provided sufficient notice of the amount

28

in controversy despite not specifying a dollar amount in the complaint.”). For
-5-

1

example, as Lopez’s former employer, CJ Logistics would have been aware of,

2

or at least reasonably capable of determining, Lopez’s lost wages and lost work

3

benefits. See, e.g., Sanchez v. AMCO Insurance Company, No. 1:19-cv-01633-

4

NONE-SKO, 2020 WL 5362406, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2020) (“The district

5

court in these cases have found, for instance, that claims by former employees

6

for backpay and a range of other monetary damages provided sufficient notice

7

of the amount in controversy despite not specifying a dollar amount in the

8

complaint.”); see also Rodriguez, No. CV 14-04265-RSWL, 2014 WL 3818108,

9

at *6 (“A defendant is not required to speculate facts that support removal

10

jurisdiction. However, a defendant is required to apply a reasonable amount of

11

intelligence in ascertaining removability.”).

12

Because the amount in controversy was intelligently ascertainable from

13

the Complaint, CJ Logistics’ removal period began to run when it received the

14

Complaint. Rodriguez, No. CV 14-04265-RSWL, 2014 WL 3818108, at *4. As

15

such, CJ Logistics removal was untimely. Moreover, because the Court finds

16

that the removal was untimely, the Court need not determine whether CJ

17

Logistics waived removal.

18

B.

19

Attorney Fees
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the Court has wide discretion to grant or deny

20

attorney fees when remanding a case. Moore v. Permanente Medical Group,

21

Inc., 981 F.2d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 1992); see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Attorney fees

22

should be granted when the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable

23

basis for seeking removal. Martin v. Franklin Capitol Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141

24

(2005) (“Absent unusual circumstances, courts may award attorney’s fees under

25

§ 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis

26

for seeking removal. Conversely, when an objectively reasonable basis exists,

27

fees should be denied.”); see also Gardner v. UICI, 508 F.3d 559, 561 (9th Cir.

28

2007).
-6-

1

Here, the Court is inclined to grant Lopez’s request for attorney fees. The

2

absence of a specific amount in controversy in the Complaint could create on its

3

face some ambiguity as to whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000,

4

however, within the four corners of the Complaint is sufficient information for

5

CJ Logistics to intelligently ascertain the amount in controversy did exceed

6

$75,000. Further, CJ Logistics, as the former employer with access to

7

employment documents, failed to reasonably engage in any investigation to

8

further assess the amount in controversy based upon the details provided in the

9

Complaint.

10

Moreover, after receiving information demonstrating that the amount in

11

controversy exceeded $75,000, CJ Logistics waited 28 days to initiate the

12

removal process. [Dkt. 16-1 at 2, ¶8]. As CJ Logistics fails to provide any facts

13

suggesting that their conduct was objectively reasonable, the Court finds that

14

Lopez is entitled to attorney fees. The Court grants Lopez attorney fees

15

consistent with the hourly rate provided in the briefing, totaling $2,100. [Dkt.

16

15-1 at 11].
IV. Conclusion

17
18

Accordingly, Lopez’s Motion [Dkt. 15] is GRANTED and CJ Logistics is

19

ORDERED to pay Lopez’s attorney fees in the amount of $2,100. Further, the

20

Court ORDERS this case remanded to the Superior Court of the State of

21

California in and for the County of Riverside.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26
27

Dated: January 17, 2023
____________________________
SUNSHINE S. SYKES
United States District Judge

28
-7-