Altamirano v. Shaw Industries, Inc. et al

Filing 16

ORDER re 9 Amended MOTION to Remand Action to State Court filed by Fidel Altamirano. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 04/29/13. (emclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/29/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

FIDEL ALTAMIRANO, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated,

No. C-13-0939 EMC

9
Plaintiff,
v.
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO REMAND

SHAW INDUSTRIES, INC., SHAW
INDUSTRIES GROUP, INC., and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive,

13
14

Defendant(s).
___________________________________/

15
16
Plaintiff in this putative class action has filed a motion to remand this case to state court,
17
arguing that Defendants have failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount
18
in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, as is required to establish federal jurisdiction under the Class
19
Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). Defendants bear the burden of demonstrating this jurisdictional
20
amount by a preponderance of the evidence. Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d
21
676, 685 (9th Cir.2006). Defendants oppose, providing estimates of the amount in controversy in
22
Plaintiff’s claims. Defendants’ calculations are supported in some places by allegations made in the
23
complaint, or by a declaration submitted with Defendants’ opposition, but in other places are based
24
on estimates with no discernable basis.
25
In order to provide Defendants’ with the opportunity to provide additional information to
26
support the reasonableness of the estimated amount in controversy, this Court will continue the
27
hearing on this motion from May 7, 2013 to May 16, 2013. This Court in particular notes that the
28

1

following information would be both useful in accurately calculating the amount in controversy and

2

non-inclupatory:

3

•

4
5

relevant periods of time (e.g. within the limitations period for the various claims).
•

6
7

The number of non-exempt employees working for Defendants during each of the

The average number of weeks per year that Defendants’ non-exempt employees
worked for each of the relevant time periods.

•

8

How many non-exempt employees left employment with Defendants during the
relevant period.

•

The average wage for non-exempt employees during the relevant period of time.

10

•

The total number of ten hour shifts worked by non-exempt employees during the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9

relevant period of time.

12
13

Defendants are therefore ORDERED to submit any supplemental information in support of their

14

opposition by May 7, 2013. Plaintiff may file any response to the supplemental information by May

15

10, 2013.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: April 29, 2013

20
21
22
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

2