Lopez et al v. Talbots, Inc.

Filing 30

ORDER by Judge Hamilton finding as moot 15 Motion to Dismiss; granting 24 Motion to Remand (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

RICARDO LOPEZ, et al.,

v.

8
9

Case No. 15-cv-5080-PJH

Plaintiffs,

7

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
REMAND

THE TALBOTS, INC.,
Defendant.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Plaintiffs’ motion to remand came on for hearing before this court on January 27,

14

2016. Plaintiffs Ricardo Lopez and Heather Votaw (“plaintiffs”) appeared through their

15

counsel, Jill Parker. Defendant The Talbots, Inc. (“defendant”) appeared through its

16

counsel, Laura Maechtlen. Having read the papers filed in conjunction with the motion

17

and carefully considered the arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause

18

appearing, the court hereby GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion for the reasons stated at the

19

hearing.

20

As discussed at the hearing, under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), the

21

removing party bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Abrego

22

Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 685 (9th Cir. 2006). And in a case such

23

as this, where it is “unclear or ambiguous from the face of a state-court complaint

24

whether the requisite amount in controversy is pled,” a “preponderance of the evidence”

25

standard applies. Guglielmino v. McKee Foods, Inc., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007).

26

While defendant has provided calculations purporting to show that the amount in

27

controversy is well over $5,000,000, plaintiffs argue that these calculations are based on

28

a number of unfounded assumptions.

1

First, defendant assumes tha every pu
d
a
at
utative class member w
s
worked one hour of
e

2

unpaid overtim per wee but does not provid any supp for that assumptio For
me
ek,
s
de
port
on.

3

stance, defe
endant did not conduc any inquir as to how many of t putative class
ct
ry
w
the
e
ins

4

me
embers wer schedule to work eight-hour s
re
ed
e
shifts, or 40
0-hour weeks, such tha any
at

5

additional hou worked would have triggered a right to o
urs
e
overtime pa Nor doe the
ay.
es

6

complaint indicate any fr
requency with which th
w
hese allege violations occurred.
ed
s
.
Second defendan assumes that every putative class memb missed t
d,
nt
s
y
ber
two meal

8

eaks every week, and also misse two rest breaks eve week. H
ed
ery
However, de
efendant
bre

9

did not condu any inqu as to ho many pu
d
uct
uiry
ow
utative clas members were sche
ss
s
eduled to

10

wo shifts tha would ha triggere a right to a meal an
ork
at
ave
ed
o
nd/or rest br
reak. Nor d
does the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

complaint indicate any fr
requency with which th
w
hese allege violations occurred.
ed
s
.

12

At the hearing, de
efendant arg
gued that it was unable to condu a more d
t
uct
detailed

13

cal
lculation of the amoun in controv
nt
versy, beca
ause it had only 30 day to file a n
ys
notice of

14

rem
moval. How
wever, the Ninth Circuit has held that, where the complaint is amb
N
e
biguous as

15

to the amount in controv
t
versy, defen
ndant may r
remove the case unde CAFA ou
e
er
utside of the
e

16

30-day windo
ow. See Ro v. CHA Hollywood Medical Ce
oth
enter, L.P., 720 F.3d 1
1121, 1125

17

(9t Cir. 2013
th
3).

18

Defend
dant also ar
rgued that plaintiffs did not count its amou
p
d
ter
unt-in-contr
roversy

19

cal
lculations with any calculations of their own. However, in making this argum
w
o
ment,

20

def
fendant atte
empts to sh its burde to plaint
hift
en
tiffs. Moreo
over, as pla
aintiff noted at the

21

hearing, defendant has exclusive access to th e relevant e
e
employmen records.
nt

22

Accord
dingly, plain
ntiffs’ motion to remand is GRANT
n
d
TED. The Clerk shall REMAND

23

this case to th Alameda County Su
s
he
a
uperior Cou As a re
urt.
esult of the remand, de
efendant’s

24

mo
otion to dism is denied as moo
miss
ot.

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: Janua 27, 2016
ary
__
__________
__________
__________
_______
PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
Un
nited States District Ju
s
udge
2