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)

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