Moore v. Urban Outfitters Wholesale, Inc.

Filing 81

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 5/28/14. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

ALEXANDER MOORE, et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

No. C 13-02245 JSW
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
REMAND

Plaintiffs,
v.
URBAN OUTFITTERS WHOLESALE, INC.,
D/B/A ANTHROPOLOGIE, a Pennsylvania
corporation, et al.,

14

Defendants.
/

15
16

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the motion to remand filed by

17

Plaintiff Alexander Moore (“Plaintiff”). The Court has considered the parties’ papers, relevant

18

legal authority, and the record in this case, and it HEREBY GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to

19

remand.

20
21

BACKGROUND
On April 10, 2013, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of other members of the public

22

similarly situated, filed a complaint against Defendant Urban Outfitters Wholesale, Inc. d/b/a

23

Anthropologie (“Urban Outfitters”) in the Superior Court of California, for the County of San

24

Francisco. Plaintiff and the members of the putative class he seeks to represent are current

25

and/or fomer hourly managers who work at Anthropologie stores. The complaint alleges seven

26

causes of action for violations of California Labor Codes for unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum

27

wages, unpaid meal rest premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, wages not timely paid upon

28

termination, non-complaint wage statements, and for violation of California Business and

1

Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.

2

On May 16, 2013, Urban Outfitters filed a notice of removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

3

Sections 1332. (Notice of Removal ¶¶ 8-10.) Urban Outfitters contends that the Court has

4

jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), which grants federal

5

district courts original jurisdiction over certain class action suits. (Id.)

6

The Court shall address additional facts as necessary in the remainder of this Order.

7
8
9

ANALYSIS
A.

Legal Standards Relevant to Removal Jurisdiction.
“[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 . . . to the district court of

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is

12

pending.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1983)

13

(citation omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1441. However, federal courts are courts of limited

14

jurisdiction. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).

15

The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction for purposes of removal is on the party

16

seeking removal, and the removal statute is construed strictly against removal jurisdiction.

17

Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

18

980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt

19

as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. In order to determine

20

whether the removing party has met its burden, a court may consider the contents of the

21

removal petition and “summary-judgment-type evidence.” Valdez, 372 F.3d at 1117. It is well

22

established that a court must evaluate whether it has jurisdiction based on the circumstances that

23

exist at the time the notice of removal is filed. See, e.g., Sparta Surgical Corp. v. National

24

Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1211 (9th Cir. 1998).

25

The Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) provides that district courts have original

26

jurisdiction over any class action in which (1) the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000,

27

(2) any plaintiff class member is a citizen of a state different from any defendant, (3) the

28

primary defendants are not states, state officials, or other government entities against whom the
2

1

district court may be foreclosed from ordering relief, and (4) the number of plaintiffs in the

2

class is at least 100. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2), (d)(5).

3

B.

4

Motion to Remand.
For purposes of removal under CAFA, the parties do not dispute minimal diversity or

5

that the class comprises at least 100 persons. Thus, the amount in controversy, which must

6

exceed $5,000,000, is the only statutory requirement at issue here.

7

Plaintiff does not allege a specific amount in controversy in his complaint but, without

8

any evidence of bad faith, does plead that the amount is less than $5,000,000, exclusive of

9

interest and costs. (See Compl. at ¶ 1.) The Court finds that Urban Outfitters bears the burden
of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

$5,000,000. See Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank National Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2007)

12

(holding that the preponderance of the evidence standard applies in situations in which the

13

plaintiff does not seek a specific amount in damages); Guglielmino v. McKee Foods, Inc., 506

14

F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Trahan v. U.S. Bank National Ass’n, 2014 WL 116606,

15

at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2014) (White, J.) (holding that the preponderance of the evidence

16

standard applies post-Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345, 1348-49 (2013), and

17

Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC, 728 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2013)).

18

Here, to demonstrate the amount in controversy, Urban Outfitters estimates the amount

19

in controversy to be over the jurisdictional prerequisite by estimating Plaintiff’s unpaid

20

overtime and minimum wage claims to total over a million dollars. Urban Outfitters estimates

21

that Plaintiff seeks one hour of overtime per workweek at an estimated overtime rate of $21,51

22

(150% of the average regular hourly rate) and half an hour of overtime per workweek at an

23

estimated overtime rate of $28.68 (200% of the average regular hourly rate), for an estimated

24

workforce of 92 during the alleged four-year period. ((Notice of Removal ¶ 21.) Urban

25

Outfitters then estimates Plaintiff’s claim for failure to pay straight-time wages at one hour per

26

employee per workweek, at an estimated hourly wage of $14.34, for an estimated workforce of

27

92 per year during the alleged four-year period. (Id.)

28
3

per week without reference to actual workweeks worked, and estimates number of employees

3

working at any one time, is unsupported by underlying facts, is speculative, and falls short of

4

meeting the preponderance of the evidence burden. See Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chemical

5

Co., 443 F.3d 676, 689 (9th Cir. 2006); Roth v. Comerica Bank, 799 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 1128-

6

1130 (C.D. Cal. 2010). Given that Urban Outfitters are in the possession of the relevant payroll

7

records, it would have been possible for the company to provide a more accurate estimated

8

accounting and not rely upon extrapolation and speculation. See, e.g., Vigil v. HMS Host USA,

9

Inc., 2012 WL 3283400, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2012). Plaintiff does not allege that every

10

putative class members was entitled to overtime, does not allege the frequency in which the

11
For the Northern District of California

However, such an estimation, which assumes time worked, estimates missed overtime

2

United States District Court

1

overtime violations occurred, and does not assert the frequency rates for his meal and rest break

12

violations. Urban Outfitters’ calculations require the Court to make assumptions that lack

13

evidentiary support. See Roth, 799 F. Supp. 2d at 1126 (holding that under the preponderance

14

of the evidence standard, courts require that “defendants adduce[] evidence that would permit

15

the court to draw an inference that . . . violations occurred with the frequency defendants

16

presume.”).

17

For these reasons, the Court finds that Urban Outfitters has not met its burden to

18

demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 by a preponderance of the

19

evidence. Thus, the Court remands this action to state court.

20
21
22
23
24

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to remand this
action to the County of San Francisco Superior Court. The Clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 28, 2014
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
4