Henry v. Central Freight Lines, Inc.

Filing 34

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 10/5/2016 GRANTING 25 Motion to Remand. This case is REMANDED to Sacramento Superior Court. Because the Court no longer has jurisdiction over this case, it cannot decide Defendant's 22 motion to change venue. Copy of remand order sent to Superior Court. CASE CLOSED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

RICKEY HENRY, an individual,
on behalf of himself, and on
behalf of all persons
similarly situated,

13
Plaintiff,

No.

2:16-cv-0280-JAM-EFB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND

14
v.
15
16

CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES, INC.,
a Corporation, and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive,

17
Defendants.
18
Defendant Central Freight Lines (“CFL”) removed this case

19
20

from Sacramento County Superior Court in February 2016 pursuant

21

to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”).

22

gives federal courts jurisdiction over certain class actions if:

23

(1) the class has more than 100 members; (2) the parties are

24

minimally diverse; and (3) the amount in controversy exceeds $5

25

million.”

26

*2 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 25, 2016).

“CAFA

Cisneros v. Lerner New York, Inc., 2016 WL 4059612, at

Plaintiff Rickey Henry (“Mr. Henry”) moved to remand the

27
28

ECF No. 1.

case.

ECF No. 25.

The Court held a hearing on Mr. Henry’s
1

1

motion to remand on September 20, 2016.

2

Court instructed CFL to file a supplemental declaration

3

indicating how many of CFL’s drivers resided in California and

4

drove for defendant in California for the four years preceding

5

the filing of this action.

6

During that hearing, the

On September 27, 2016, CFL filed its supplemental

7

declaration.

ECF No. 33.

In the declaration, Vice President and

8

Chief Financial Officer of CFL, Todd Militzer, stated that

9

“[d]uring the four years preceding the filing of this action, at

10

least 159 truck drivers resided and drove in California under

11

independent contractor agreements with CFL.”

12

Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 33.

13

Militzer Suppl.

Mr. Militzer’s declaration establishes that the putative

14

class exceeds 100 members.

But, despite this declaration, CFL

15

has failed to show that the amount in controversy exceeds the $5

16

million jurisdictional threshold required by CAFA.

17

is no presumption against removal when a case is removed pursuant

18

to CAFA, “the defendant still bears the burden of establishing

19

removal jurisdiction.”

20

has failed to meet its burden

While there

Cisneros, 2016 WL 4059612, at *2.

CFL

21

CFL supported its notice of removal with a declaration from

22

Vicky O’Brien that stated that independent owner-operator truck

23

drivers “paid more than $5,000,000 in fuel costs” from January to

24

October 2015.

25

provide any data or explanation of how Ms. O’Brien reached this

26

conclusion.

27
28

O’Brien Decl. ¶ 11, ECF No. 1-8.

CFL did not

In support of his motion to remand, Mr. Henry supplied the
Court with a data summary sheet that was sent from CFL to Mr.
2

1

Henry’s counsel to show the data upon which Ms. O’Brien relied in

2

writing her declaration.

3

This.

4

are for all miles, and not just for California miles.”

5

Bhowmik Decl.

6

Ex. 1 to Bhowmik Decl., ECF No. 25-2.

The data summary sheet indicates that “the fuel deductions
Ex. 1 to

In opposition to Mr. Henry’s motion to remand, CFL submitted

7

a declaration from Mr. Militzer stating that the putative class

8

“paid more than $7,450,000.00 in deductions for fuel purchased

9

while performing services” for CFL in the four years preceding

10

the filing on the complaint in this action.

11

ECF No. 28-1.

12

the independent owner-operator truck drivers [in the putative

13

class] drove a total of 5,652,394 miles . . . 3,168,524 [of those

14

miles] were driven in California.”

15

proportion of California miles driven in relation to the total

16

miles driven . . . should have been approximately the same since

17

2011.”

18

argument, Mr. Militzer’s declaration indicates that only 56% of

19

the miles driven in 2015 were driven in California.

20

proportion of California mileage versus non-California “should

21

have been approximately the same” in the four years prior to

22

2015, this means that only about 56% of the $7,450,000 in fuel

23

deductions were for California miles.

24

shown by Mr. Militzer’s declaration that about $4,172,000 is in

25

controversy in this case.

26

indicates that putative class members paid more than $2,250,000

27

in lease payments.

28

lease payments include the costs expended for purchasing or

Militzer Decl. ¶ 8,

Mr. Militzer further indicated that “[i]n 2015,

Id. ¶ 12.

Id. ¶ 11.

Additionally, “the

As noted by Plaintiff’s counsel at oral

Because the

Thus, Defendants have

Mr. Militzer’s declaration also

But, Mr. Militzer does not indicate if these

3

1

leasing the vehicle.

2

Inc., 2015 WL 5179486, *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2015), while “the

3

costs of operating a motor vehicle in the course of employment

4

may be [reimbursed], the costs of furnishing the vehicle itself

5

are not.”

6

original) (internal citations omitted).

7

include the $2,250,000 in alleged lease payments in calculating

8

the amount in controversy.

As indicated by Villalpando v. Exel Direct

Villalpando, 2015 WL 5179486, *4 (emphasis in
Thus, the Court cannot

9

CFL has only definitively shown that about $4.1 million is

10

in controversy in this case which is well below the $5 million

11

jurisdictional threshold.

12

remand is GRANTED, and the Court hereby remands this case to the

13

Superior Court for the County of Sacramento.

14

no longer has jurisdiction over this case, it cannot decide

15

Defendant’s motion to change venue.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to

Dated: October 5, 2016

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

Because the Court