Giannini v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company et al

Filing 25

ORDER ALLOWING DEFENDANTS TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/10/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2012)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 6 DAVID GIANNINI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and in the interest of the general public of the State of California, 7 8 9 ORDER ALLOWING DEFENDANTS TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE v. 12 NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Wisconsin company; NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA GROUP, INC., a California corporation; and JOHN GOODENOUGH, an individual, 13 Defendants. 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California Plaintiff, No. C 12-77 CW 11 14 ________________________________/ 15 16 Plaintiff David Giannini moves to remand this putative class 17 action to state court. 18 Insurance Company, SFBAG Insurance Services, Inc., sued as 19 Northwestern Mutual – San Francisco Bay Area Group, Inc., and John 20 Goodenough oppose the motion. 21 Defendant Northwestern Mutual Life Plaintiff argues, in part, that Defendants have not satisfied 22 the amount-in-controversy requirement to establish removal 23 jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). 24 When it is not “‘facially apparent’ from the complaint that the 25 jurisdictional amount is in controversy,” a “court may consider 26 facts in the removal petition, and may require parties to submit 27 summary-judgment-type evidence relevant to the amount in 28 controversy at the time of removal.” Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal 2 quotations omitted). 3 submitted by Defendants thus far, it appears possible that the 4 jurisdictional amount is in controversy in this case, the evidence 5 currently in the record does not allow the Court to conclude that 6 this amount in fact is more likely than not in controversy without 7 speculation. 8 of “work weeks” that putative class members worked during the 9 relevant time period, they do not offer any evidence regarding the 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 1 total number of days worked by putative class members during that 11 time or the average number of days worked per “work week” by 12 putative class members during that time. While, from the additional evidence While Defendants offer evidence regarding the number 13 The Court also notes that attorneys’ fees are properly 14 included in the amount in controversy for purposes of evaluating 15 jurisdiction under CAFA. 16 F.3d 696, 700 (9th Cir. 2007). 17 “[w]here the law entitles the prevailing plaintiff to recover 18 reasonable attorney fees, a reasonable estimate of fees likely to 19 be incurred to resolution is part of the benefit permissibly 20 sought by the plaintiff and thus contributes to the amount in 21 controversy.” 22 1004, 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2002). 23 reasonable estimate of attorneys’ fees in the calculation. Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 Further, this Court agrees that, Brady v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 2d Therefore, the Court will include a 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 Accordingly, Defendants are GRANTED LEAVE to file 2 supplemental evidence addressing the deficiency identified above 3 within seven days of the date of this Order. 4 include with their submission an updated estimate of the amount in 5 controversy and the calculations underlying this estimate. 6 Plaintiff may respond to Defendants’ supplemental evidence four 7 days thereafter. 8 Defendants shall IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 Dated: 4/10/2012 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?