McDaniel v. Mondelez Global, LLC

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 7/1/2014 DENYING 4 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12

TIMOTHY MCDANIEL,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15
16

CIV. NO. 2:14-898 WBS AC
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:
MOTION TO REMAND

v.
MONDELEZ GLOBAL, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Corporation;
and DOES 1-25, inclusive,

17

Defendant.

18
19
----oo0oo----

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff Timothy McDaniel initiated this action
against defendant Mondelez Global, LLC, bringing claims arising
out of plaintiff’s employment with defendant.

Defendant removed

this action from Sacramento County Superior Court on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and plaintiff now moves
to remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
I.

Factual & Procedural Background

28
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Plaintiff began working for defendant as a truck driver
in 2011, first as a temporary employee and later on a permanent
basis.
1).)

In June and July 2013, plaintiff raised complaints

regarding age discrimination and safety violations on the part of
defendant, after which defendant allegedly suspended him without
pay and ultimately terminated his employment.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

(Notice of Remand Ex. A (“Compl.”) at ¶ 19 (Docket No.

(Id. ¶¶ 22-41.)

Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement between
defendant and plaintiff’s union, an arbitrator determined on
February 13, 2014, that defendant did not have just cause to
terminate plaintiff but did have just cause to suspend him
without pay for sixty days.
No. 4).)

(Id. ¶ 45; Clark Decl. ¶ 4 (Docket

Accordingly, the arbitrator ordered plaintiff

reinstated and made whole for any loss of pay and benefits, minus
sixty days of pay.

(Compl. ¶ 45.)

Plaintiff then filed his Complaint in the Superior
Court of California, County of Sacramento, on February 27, 2014,
bringing claims of: (1) retaliation in violation of the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Cal. Gov’t
Code §§ 12900 et seq.; (2) retaliation in violation of California
Labor Code section 6310; (3) retaliation in violation of
California Labor Code section 1102.5; and (4) wrongful
termination in violation of public policy.

(Id. ¶¶ 50-83.)

Defendant subsequently reinstated plaintiff in March,
(Clark Decl. ¶ 6), and removed the action to federal court on
April 11, 2014, (Docket No. 1).

Plaintiff now moves to remand

this action to state court, upon the ground that removal was

28
2

1
2
3

improper because this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over the proceeding.
II.

Discussion

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

“[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which
the district courts of the United States have original
jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants,
to the district court of the United States for the district . . .
where such action is pending.”

13
14
15
16

jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

However, if

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Federal courts have original jurisdiction over cases
where complete diversity exists between the parties and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Because the parties do not dispute that diversity exists between
all parties, the sole issue is whether the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000.

17
18

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

“it appears that the district court lacks subject matter

11
12

(Docket No. 4.)

Plaintiff’s Complaint does not specify a particular
amount of alleged damages.

In such cases, “the removing

defendant bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds [$75,000].”
Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir.
1996).

When determining whether the removing defendant has met

this burden, the court may consider “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.
Conclusory allegations as to the amount in controversy are
insufficient.”

Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319

28
3

1
2

F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (citation and
quotation marks omitted).

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Plaintiff argues that the amount in controversy is less
than $75,000 because he was reinstated to his position in March
2014, mitigating to some degree his claim for lost wages.1
(Clark Decl. ¶ 4 (Docket No. 4).)

Damages for lost wages,

however, are not the sole remedy plaintiff seeks.

To the

contrary, each of plaintiff’s claims seeks additional remedies in
the form of general damages for emotional distress, punitive
damages,2 and attorneys’ fees.3

(See Compl. ¶¶ 50-83.)

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Defendant argues that lost wages are still in
controversy because plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that he was
passed over for a promotion in favor of a younger and less
experienced person, (Compl. ¶¶ 22-23), after which he filed an
external complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) claiming age discrimination, (id. ¶ 30).
Plaintiff’s Complaint here, however, does not state a claim for
age discrimination itself but instead claims that defendant
retaliated against plaintiff for filing the age discrimination
complaint with the EEOC. (Id. ¶¶ 51-13.) Accordingly, lost
wages from the alleged age discrimination are not at issue.
2

The amount in controversy may include punitive damages
when they are recoverable as a matter of law. Gibson v. Chrysler
Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 945 (9th Cir. 2001); Simmons v. PCR Tech.,
209 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1033 (N.D. Cal. 2002). Because plaintiff
brings a claim under FEHA, and “[p]unitive damages are
recoverable for FEHA violations,” Yeager v. Corr. Corp. of Am.,
944 F. Supp. 2d 913, 931 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (Ishii, J.), punitive
damages may be included in the amount in controversy here.
3

If a statue underlying plaintiff’s claim authorizes an
award of attorneys’ fees, the court may include such fees when
determining the amount in controversy. Galt G/S v. JSS
Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1156 (9th Cir. 1998). If plaintiff
prevails on his FEHA claim, he will be entitled to attorneys’
fees as a matter of right. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 12965.
Accordingly, the court may consider attorneys’ fees when
assessing the amount in controversy.
4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Defendant points to a settlement demand letter from
October 2013 as evidence of the amount at which plaintiff valued
these claims.

amount in controversy if it appears to reflect a reasonable
estimate of the plaintiff’s claim.”

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281

F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).

In Cohn,

because the plaintiff did not represent that his settlement
demand was inflated, disavow the letter, or offer any contrary
evidence regarding his valuation of the case, the court relied on
the settlement letter to find that the amount-in-controversy
requirement was met.

Id.; see also Arellano v. Home Depot

U.S.A., Inc., 245 F. Supp. 2d 1102, 1108 (S.D. Cal. 2003)
(finding that a letter that demanded either $70,000 or $90,000
sufficed to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement when
plaintiff did not offer any argument or evidence that figures in
the letter were “inflated or otherwise unreliable”).

17
18

“A settlement letter is relevant evidence of the

Here, in addition to $179,856 for lost wages and
benefits, plaintiff’s letter demanded $315,144 to compensate for
his alleged emotional distress as well as attorneys’ fees and
punitive damages.

(Cheng Decl. ¶ 2 (Docket No. 8-1).)

Thus,

even assuming that the reinstatement moots plaintiff’s claim to
lost wages, he still estimated that his remaining remedies were
valued at an amount over the jurisdictional requirement of
$75,000.
Plaintiff, as in Cohn, also does not claim that his
settlement demand was inflated, disavow the letter, or offer any

27
28
5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

contrary evidence regarding his valuation of the case.4
Cohn, 281 F.3d at 840.

13
14

“otherwise unreliable.”

17

Arellano, 245 F. Supp. 2d at 1108.

Instead, plaintiff’s counsel acknowledges the letter but simply
chides defendant for not responding to it.
(Docket No. 9-1).)

(Clark Decl. ¶ 6

The letter thus “appears to reflect a

reasonable estimate of the plaintiff’s claim,” Cohn, 281 F.3d at
840, and provides relevant evidence, uncontroverted by plaintiff,
regarding the amount in controversy in this action.
Accordingly, because defendant has demonstrated that it
is more likely than not that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000, this court has diversity jurisdiction and must deny
plaintiff’s order to remand.

15
16

Nor does plaintiff offer any argument or

evidence that the figures in the settlement letter were

11
12

See

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to
remand be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
Dated:

July 1, 2014

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

Defendant also asserts that plaintiff’s refusal to
stipulate to an amount of damages below $75,000 is further
evidence of the amount in controversy. However, courts accord
little weight to such stipulations prepared after removal. See
Simmons, 209 F. Supp. 2d at 1033 (citing St. Paul Mercury Indem.
Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 292 (1938)).
6