Migis v. AutoZone, Inc.

Filing 18

OPINION AND ORDER. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (#10) is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 01/29/09 by Judge Garr M. King. (pvh)

FILEO JAN 2~ 2009

IN m E U N I T E D S T A T E S D I S l R I C T C O U R T D I S T R I C T OF O R E G O N M I C H A E L MIGIS, i n d i v i d u a l l y a n d o n b e h a l f o f all o t h e r s s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d , Plaintiff, vs.
) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Case N o . 0 8 - 1 3 9 4 - K I OPINION A N D O R D E R

)
A U T O Z O N E , INC., a N e v a d a corporation, ) ) ) Defendant. )

A.E. B u d B a i l e y J. D a n a Pinney C h e y K. P o w e l s o n Bailey, P i n n e y & A s s o c i a t e s , LLC 1498 SE T e c h C e n t e r Place, Suite 2 9 0 Vancouver, W a s h i n g t o n 98683 A t t o r n e y s for P l a i n t i f f

Page 1 - OPINION A N D O R D E R

Leigh Ann Tift Adam S. Belzberg Littler M e n d e l s o n One U n i o n Square 600 U n i v e r s i t y S t r e e t , S u i t e 3 2 0 0 Seattle, W a s h i n g t o n 9 8 1 0 1 - 3 1 2 2 Attorneys f o r D e f e n d a n t

K I N G , Judge: P l a i n t i f f b r i n g s a p u t a t i v e class a c t i o n a l l e g i n g w a g e and h o u r v i o l a t i o n s . Before the court is p l a i n t i f f ' s Motion to Remand (#10). For t h e following reasons, I grant the motion.

BACKGROUND
P l a i n t i f f filed t h i s c a s e i n M u l t n o m a h C o u n t y C i r c u i t C o u r t o n N o v e m b e r 1 6 , 2 0 0 7 . I n his Complaint, p l a i n t i f f alleged, " T h e aggregate total o f the claims pled herein do not exceed five million dollars." C o m p l a i n t " 12. P l a i n t i f f a l l e g e s d e f e n d a n t f a i l e d t o p a y all w a g e s f o r i n t e r r u p t e d m e a l p e r i o d s ( " m e a l period" claim), defendant d i d not p a y for time worked before a n d after shifts ("alarm" claim) or for travel time between store assignments ("gap time" claim), defendant failed to p a y the minimum wage for all hours worked, failed to pay overtime, a n d failed to p a y all wages due w h e n e m p l o y m e n t e n d e d ( " f m a l w a g e s " claim). The H o n o r a b l e J e r o m e LaBarre, i n M u l t n o m a h C o u n t y C i r c u i t C o u r t , d e n i e d d e f e n d a n t ' s motions to dismiss and to stay the case. Defendant served an Answer o n March 21, 2008. P l a i n t i f f filed m o t i o n s t o c o m p e l d i s c o v e r y a n d , p u r s u a n t t o t h e s u b s e q u e n t c o u r t o r d e r s , defendant began producing records between April a n d June 2008. P l a i n t i f f filed a motion for

Page 2 - OPINION A N D O R D E R

class action certification, w h i c h he served o n August 1 5 , 2 0 0 8 . P l a i n t i f f filed a n d served further briefing in support o f his m o t i o n no later than October 14. H e m o v e d for class certification with a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o n e y e a r ' s w o r t h o f records. O n O c t o b e r 3 1 , p l a i n t i f f a r g u e d h i s m o t i o n b e f o r e J u d g e L a B a r r e . D u r i n g the h e a r i n g , p l a i n t i f f ' s c o u n s e l r e p r e s e n t e d t h a t t h e a m o u n t i n wages due and o w i n g f o r the m e a l p e r i o d c l a i m w o u l d be $ 1 , 1 1 4 , 0 0 0 . H e c a m e t o t h i s c o n c l u s i o n b y m u l t i p l y i n g $ 1 0 a n h o u r ( a v e r a g e w a g e ) b y t h e n u m b e r o f m i n u t e s ( 1 1 4 , 6 4 3 ) 3 9 5 e m p l o y e e s I w o r k e d i n s t e a d o f t a k i n g a m e a l break. C o u n s e l , h o w e v e r , f a i l e d t o c o m p u t e t h e m i n u t e s i n t o h o u r s b e f o r e m u l t i p l y i n g t h a t n u m b e r by the hourly wage. I n reality, the n u m b e r o f hours was 1,910, which, w h e n multiplied by six years a t $ 1 0 a n hour, r e s u l t s i n d a m a g e s o f $ 1 1 4 , 6 0 0 . J u d g e L a B a r r e c e r t i f i e d t h e p r o p o s e d classes a n d ordered defendant t o p r o v i d e a class list within 10 days. Judge LaBarre h e l d a hearing o n N o v e m b e r 18 t o address d e f e n d a n t ' s discovery v i o l a t i o n s . H e c o n c l u d e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t " k n o w i n g l y a n d w i l f u l l y " v i o l a t e d t h e c o u r t ' s discovery o r d e r s b y failing t o t i m e l y p r o d u c e d i s c o v e r y a n d i m p o s e d s a n c t i o n s o n d e f e n d a n t i n t h e a m o u n t o f p l a i n t i f f ' s costs a n d attorneys' fees incurred as a result o f the conduct. O n N o v e m b e r 2 6 , 2 0 0 8 , f e w e r t h a n t e n days a f t e r J u d g e L a B a r r e ' s f i n d i n g o n s a n c t i o n s , defendant filed a N o t i c e o f R e m o v a l . D e f e n d a n t removes o n t h e b a s i s o f t h e Class A c t i o n Fairness Act. Defendant contends t h a t o n October 31, 2008, " a t a hearing before the Multnomah C i r c u i t Court, P l a i n t i f f ' s c o u n s e l r e p r e s e n t e d t h a t t h e a m o u n t i n c o n t r o v e r s y e x c e e d s F i v e

I P l a i n t i f f ' s c o u n s e l a l s o m i s s p o k e i n the c l a s s c e r t i f i c a t i o n h e a r i n g , s a y i n g 3 9 5 e m p l o y e e s w e r e a f f e c t e d , b u t t h e b r i e f i n g r e f l e c t s o n l y 3 2 7 e m p l o y e e s w o u l d fall i n t h e m e a l p e r i o d class f o r o n e year. Cf. Decl. o f Leigh A n n T i f t in Supp. o f Not. o f Removal Ex. 2 a t 35 w i t h Mot. for R e m a n d a t 4. Page 3 - OPINION A N D O R D E R

Million Dollars ($5,000,000)." Not. o f Removal at 4. Defendant relies heavily o n plaintiff's c o u n s e l ' s miscalculation, asserting t h a t i f damages for the meal period claim for a thirteen month period results i n $1,114,000, "straight time damages claimed for unpaid lunch periods for a six year class period [would total] $6,169,846 . . . . This claim alone easily exceeds $5,000,000.00." Id. at 3. The records covering the remaining five years o f the class periods were due to be produced in early December 2008. The case was set for trial in March 2009 in Multnomah C o u n t y Circuit Court.

LEGAL STANDARDS
A civil a c t i o n b r o u g h t i n state c o u r t m a y b e r e m o v e d b y t h e d e f e n d a n t t o federal district court i f the district court has original jurisdiction o v e r the action, that is, i f the action could have b e e n b r o u g h t f i r s t i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 4 4 1 ( a ) . T h e p a r t y s e e k i n g r e m o v a l h a s the burden o f establishing federal jurisdiction. Westinghouse Elec. Com. v. N e w m a n & Holtzinger. P.C., 992 F.2d 9 3 2 , 9 3 4 (9th Cir. 1993). P u r s u a n t to t h e C l a s s A c t i o n F a i r n e s s A c t , a d i s t r i c t c o u r t h a s o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r " a n y civil a c t i o n i n w h i c h t h e m a t t e r i n c o n t r o v e r s y e x c e e d s t h e s u m o r v a l u e o f $ 5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 , e x c l u s i v e o f i n t e r e s t o r c o s t s , a n d is a c l a s s a c t i o n i n w h i c h . . . a n y m e m b e r o f a c l a s s o f plaintiffs is a citizen o f a State different from any defendant." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). A d d i t i o n a l l y , " [ i ] n any c l a s s a c t i o n , t h e c l a i m s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l c l a s s m e m b e r s shall b e aggregated t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e m a t t e r i n controversy e x c e e d s t h e s u m o r v a l u e o f $5,000,000, exclusive o f interest a n d costs." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(6).

Page 4 - OPINION A N D O R D E R

The party seeking removal m u s t s h o w ' ' t o a legal certainty t h a t t h e amount in controversy exceeds the statutory m i n i m u m " where a p l a i n t i f f specifically pleads t h a t damages are less than $5,000,000 i n the Complaint. Lowdermilk v. United States B a n k N a t ' l Assoc., 479 F.3d 994, 999 (9th Cir. 2007). T h e n o t i c e o f r e m o v a l m a y b e filed " w i t h i n t h i r t y d a y s a f t e r r e c e i p t b y t h e defendant, t h r o u g h service o r o t h e r w i s e , o f a c o p y o f a n a m e n d e d pleading, m o t i o n , o r d e r o r o t h e r p a p e r from which i t m a y first be ascertained t h a t the case is one w h i c h is o r has become r e m o v a b l e . . . ." 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 4 4 6 ( b ) ( e m p h a s i s added). Courts strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction, and any doubt as t o the right o f removal is resolved in favor o f remand. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F . 2 d 564, 566

( 9 t h Cir. 1 9 9 2 ) .
DISCUSSION A f t e r r e v i e w i n g all t h e e v i d e n c e a n d hearing argument, I c o n c l u d e that defendant has failed t o prove " t o a legal certainty" the amount in controversy for p l a i n t i f f ' s action exceeds the statutory m i n i m u m . First, d e f e n d a n t i m p r o p e r l y r e l i e d o n p l a i n t i f f s c o u n s e l ' s m a t h e m a t i c a l e r r o r i n seeking r e m o v a l . I n i t s N o t i c e o f R e m o v a l , d e f e n d a n t e x p l a i n s p l a i n t i f f ' s c o u n s e l r e p r e s e n t e d t h a t the a m o u n t i n w a g e s for t h e m e a l p e r i o d c l a i m w o u l d b e $ 1 , 1 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 2 P l a i n t i f f s c o u n s e l c a m e to

2Defendant i n i t i a l l y a s k e d t h a t I t r e a t p l a i n t i f f s c o u n s e l ' s s t a t e m e n t a s a j u d i c i a l a d m i s s i o n , a l t h o u g h i t b a c k e d o f f t h i s p o s i t i o n d u r i n g o r a l a r g u m e n t . I d o n o t c o n s i d e r the statement a j u d i c i a l admission as i t w a s n o t a "deliberate, clear and unequivocal" statement. See Heritage B a n k v. R e d c o m Laboratories, Inc., 250 F.3d 319, 3 2 9 (5 th Cir. 2001). I n fact, p l a i n t i f f c l e a r l y s t a t e d t h e c o r r e c t n u m b e r o f h o u r s i n his M o t i o n f o r O R C P 3 2 C C l a s s A c t i o n Certification. Decl. o f C h e y P o w e l s o n Supporting P l a i n t i f f s Mot. for R e m a n d Ex. 3 at 18. Page 5 - OPINION A N D O R D E R

this conclusion by multiplying $10 a n hour (average wage) b y t h e n u m b e r o f minutes (114,643) 3 2 7 e m p l o y e e s w o r k e d i n s t e a d o f t a k i n g a m e a l break. C o u n s e l , h o w e v e r , f a i l e d t o c o m p u t e t h e minutes into hours before multiplying that number by the hourly wage. I n reality, the number o f hours is 1,910, which, w h e n multiplied by six years at $10 a n hour, would result in damages o f $114,600. I n addition, i n its Notice o f Removal defendant incorrectly asserted t h a t plaintiff's fInal wages c l a i m w a s a s i x - y e a r class, w h e n p l a i n t i f f c l e a r l y d e s i g n a t e d i t a t h r e e - y e a r c l a s s i n his motion for class certifIcation. Furthermore, defendant incorrectly assumed that each employee would be entitled to 30 days o f wages as a penalty for defendant's failure to timely p a y fInal wages. I n fact, under Oregon law, an employee may recover a penalty wage equal to 8 hours per day times his regular rate o f pay f r o m the due date until the wages are paid. ORS 652.150(1) ( e m p h a s i s added). P l a i n t i f f s u b m i t t e d e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g h i s m o t i o n f o r c l a s s c e r t i f I c a t i o n t h a t c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s d e f e n d a n t w a s l a t e i n i s s u i n g a p a y c h e c k to t e r m i n a t e d e m p l o y e e s a little less than 8 days o n average. When I correct for the mathematical error and defendant's evaluation o f the fInal wages c l a i m , w h i c h d e f e n d a n t c o n c e d e s f o r p u r p o s e s o f this m o t i o n , I c o m e t o t h e f o l l o w i n g conclusions o n the s u b s t a n t i v e v i o l a t i o n s :

Claim
Meal Period Claim

A m o u n t for S u b s t a n t i v e Violation
$ 1 1 4 , 6 0 0 (for s i x years)

Calculation
1,910 h o u r s ( f o r 3 2 7 e m p l o y e e s ) x $ 1 0 l b o u r x 6 years

Page 6 - OPINION A N D O R D E R

Gap Time Claim Alarm C l a i m

$ 2 , 0 0 0 ( f o r s i x years) $ 9 2 , 4 0 6 ( f o r s i x years)

400 employees ( f o r s i x years)3 x 30 minutes x $ 1 0 / h o u r 39.8 h o u r s i n o n e s t o r e x $ 1 0 / h o u r x 2 9 s t o r e s = $ 1 1 , 5 5 1 , r e d u c i n g n u m b e r o f stores 10% f o r e a c h o f p a s t s i x y e a r s t o a c c o u n t for r e d u c e d n u m b e r o f s t o r e s 157 e m p l o y e e s 4 x 8 h o u r s / d a y x $ l O / h o u r x 3 years x 7 . 7 6 days l a t e n o t seriously disputed b y p l a i n t i f f

Final Wages C l a i m Attorneys' F e e s

$ 2 4 2 , 3 9 6 ( f o r t h r e e years) $1,000,000

TOTAL

$1,451,402

D e f e n d a n t c l a i m s t h a t r e g a r d l e s s o f a n y errors i n its N o t i c e o f R e m o v a l , p l a i n t i f f s p o s i t i o n o n p e n a l t y w a g e s p l a c e s p l a i n t i f f s a c t i o n o v e r t h e s t a t u t o r y m i n i m u m . A c c o r d i n g to defendant, p l a i n t i f f i n t e r p r e t s O R S 6 5 3 . 0 5 5 a n d O R S 6 5 2 . 1 5 0 to p r o v i d e for w a g e s " a t t h e s a m e h o u r l y r a t e for e i g h t h o u r s p e r d a y u n t i l p a i d [ b u t n o t t o e x c e e d 3 0 d a y s ] " f o r a l l w a g e a n d h o u r v i o l a t i o n s a l l e g e d i f t h e e m p l o y e r a c t e d w i l l f u l l y . A s a r e s u l t , d e f e n d a n t c o n c l u d e s t h e following:

Claim
Meal Period Claim Gap T i m e C l a i m

Amount for Penalty
$ 2 , 3 5 4 , 4 0 0 ( f o r three years) $720,000

Calculation
3 2 7 x $ l O / h o u r x 8 h o u r s / d a y x 3 0 days x 3 years S 3 0 0 employees 6 x $ 1 0 / h o u r x 8 hours/day x 3 0 days

3Plaintiff's counsel e x p l a i n e d to Judge LaBarre that there were about 100 employees in a o n e - y e a r period, w i t h f e w e r s t o r e s g o i n g b a c k w a r d s , a n d his " s u s p i c i o n " w a s " b e t w e e n 4 0 0 and 600 p e o p l e " for six years w o u l d fall i n the gap time class. T i f t Decl. Ex. 2 at 27. 4Again, for purposes o f this motion, defendant agrees t h a t the n u m b e r is 157 and not the 162 r e f l e c t e d i n i t s N o t i c e o f R e m o v a l .
Sit is unclear t o m e w h y defendant multiples by only three years w h e n the class period is six years. D e f s . ' Opp. to P l . ' s Mot. for R e m a n d a t 9.

6Defendant u s e s 3 0 0 r a t h e r t h a n 4 0 0 w i t h o u t e x p l a n a t i o n . Page 7 - OPINION A N D O R D E R

Alann Claim M i n i m u m Wage Overtime C l a i m

$1,200,000 $ 1 , 5 1 2 , 0 0 0 ( f o r three years) N o estimate

5 0 0 employees? x $ l O / h o u r x 8 h o u r s / d a y x 30 days 900 (300 employees x 3 years) x $7/hour x 8 h o u r s / d a y x 3 0 days

TOTAL

$5,786,400

I reject d e f e n d a n t ' s p e n a l t y calculations o n a n u m b e r o f grounds. F i r s t , w i t h regard t o penalties for the meal p e r i o d claim, defendant assumes that the n u m b e r o f employees for the m e a l p e r i o d c l a i m for o n e y e a r i s i n d i c a t i v e o f t h e n u m b e r o f d i f f e r e n t e m p l o y e e s w h o s u f f e r e d that violation for the class period. The record, however, does not support t h e notion that 327 s e p a r a t e e m p l o y e e s s u f f e r e d t h e m e a l p e r i o d d e d u c t i o n i n e a c h o f t h e y e a r s m a k i n g u p the c l a s s p e r i o d . P l a i n t i f f m o v e d f o r c l a s s c e r t i f i c a t i o n o n t h e b a s i s o f o n e y e a r ' s w o r t h o f r e c o r d s and, a l t h o u g h d e f e n d a n t h a s a c c e s s t o all s i x y e a r s o f i t s e m p l o y e e s ' p a y r e c o r d s , i t d i d n o t s u b m i t evidence to support its assertions. D e f e n d a n t ' s theory would a l l o w the court to assume j u r i s d i c t i o n o n the b a s i s t h a t t h e s a m e c l a s s m e m b e r s a r e e n t i t l e d t o m u l t i p l e p e n a l t i e s f o r t h e s a m e v i o l a t i o n . P l a i n t i f f d o e s n o t m a k e t h a t argument. Similarly, I disagree w i t h defendant's position o n the m i n i m u m wage claim. As an initial matter, there is no evidence i n the record as to h o w many employees were paid at or near the m i n i m u m w a g e s u c h t h a t a w a g e a n d h o u r v i o l a t i o n , like a n i m p r o p e r m e a l d e d u c t i o n , w o u l d d i p the e m p l o y e e ' s p a y b e l o w m i n i m u m w a g e a n d e n t i t l e t h a t e m p l o y e e t o a p e n a l t y . P l a i n t i f f w a s n o t r e q u i r e d to p r o d u c e e v i d e n c e o f n u m e r o s i t y o n t h i s d e r i v a t i v e c l a s s , a n d d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t o f f e r e v i d e n c e o f t h e n u m b e r o f i t s e m p l o y e e s i t p a y s a t m i n i m u m wage.

?Defendant p r o v i d e s n o c i t a t i o n t o s u p p o r t t h i s n u m b e r . Page 8 - OPINION A N D O R D E R

Furthennore, defendant again assumes that the number o f employees for the meal period claim for one year (approximately 300) may be multiplied b y three to reflect the number o f employees who are also entitled to a penalty for a minimum wage violation. Again, defendant has produced no evidence o f the turnover rate to support its assumption that the number o f employees from one y e a r ' s worth o f records reflects the total n u m b e r o f different employees who suffered t h a t v i o l a t i o n f o r t h e c l a s s p e r i o d . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , i n e v a l u a t i n g t h e m i n i m u m w a g e c l a i m , d e f e n d a n t s u g g e s t e d a t oral argument that I should rely o n several charts produced by p l a i n t i f f i n support o f his motion for class certification. The c h a r t s d e s c r i b e d t h e n u m b e r o f " u n i q u e e m p l o y e e s " w h o e x p e r i e n c e d v a r i o u s v i o l a t i o n s . D e f e n d a n t s u g g e s t s b y a d d i n g the n u m b e r o f ' ' u n i q u e e m p l o y e e s " w h o s u f f e r e d t h e v a r i o u s v i o l a t i o n s , I w i l l c o n c l u d e t h a t m o r e t h a n 9 0 0 e m p l o y e e s h a v e a claim for minimum wages for one year. See Shubin Decl. o f October 6 , 2 0 0 8 attached to Powelson Decl. marked Ex. 2 (395 "unique employees" evaluated for gap time claim, 186 "unique employees" deactivating alarm, 195 " u n i q u e employees" activating alarm, 327 employees for meal period claim). D e f e n d a n t , h o w e v e r , m i s r e a d s t h e n u m b e r o f e m p l o y e e s w i t h a g a p t i m e c l a i m ; the number is actually 90. Additionally, nothing in the record indicates that p l a i n t i f f intended the w o r d s " u n i q u e e m p l o y e e s " to i n d i c a t e t h e e m p l o y e e s a c t i v a t i n g t h e a l a r m d i f f e r e d f r o m t h o s e d e a c t i v a t i n g t h e a l a r m . I n c o n t e x t , t h e m o s t n a t u r a l r e a d i n g o f the w o r d s i s t h a t t h e a u t h o r wished to distinguish t h e total n u m b e r o f instances o f activating and deactivating the alarms from the number o f distinct employees activating and deactivating alarms. Indeed, i n his motion for class certification, p l a i n t i f f s t a t e s t h e c l a s s w o u l d n u m b e r " a t l e a s t 5 0 e m p l o y e e s . " P o w e l s o n

Page 9 - OPINION A N D O R D E R

Dec!. Ex. 3, M i g i s ' Mot. for Class Cert. at 21. In his motion to remand, p l a i n t i f f states the class would be 195 employees. Mot. to R e m a n d at 3. I n the class certification hearing, plaintiff relied o n the number o f ininutes for one store, rather than the number o f employees. Tift Decl. Ex. 2 at 31. (For this reason, I c a n find n o support for defendant's assertion t h a t 500 employees fall in the alarm claim class, for purposes o f evaluating potential penalties, ~d defendant provides no c i t a t i o n t o the r e c o r d . ) In summary, resolving all doubts in favor o f plaintiff, I conclude that defendant has failed to show to a "legal certainty" that p l a i n t i f f ' s action involves the statutoI}' minimum o f $5,000,000. I find that the record reflects that at most a total o f $3,664,202 is in controversy.

Claim
Meal Period Claim Gap T i m e C l a i m Alarm C l a i m M i n i m u m Wage Overtime C l a i m Total for Penalties Total for Substantive V i o l a t i o n s (including attorneys' fees) TOTAL

Amount for Penalty $ 7 8 4 , 8 0 0 ( f o r one year) $ 9 6 0 , 0 0 0 (for s i x years) $ 4 6 8 , 0 0 0 ( f o r o n e year) N o estimate N o estimate $2,212,800 $1,451,402

Calculation 327 x $101hour x 8 hours/day x 30 days 400 x $101hour x 8 hours/day x 30 days 195 x $101hour x 8 hours/day x 30 days

$3,664,202

Since I find that defendant has failed to meet its burden, I do n o t evaluate plaintiff's other arguments t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s c o u n s e l ' s s t a t e m e n t a t a h e a r i n g d o e s n o t q u a l i f y a s a n " a m e n d e d pleading, motion, order o r o t h e r paper" under the removal statute, that defendant failed to file a

Page 10 - OPINION A N D O R D E R

notice o f removal w i t h a n original signature within the time limits, a n d that the notice o f removal d i d n o t c o n t a i n all t h e o r d e r s p l a i n t i f f s e r v e d o n d e f e n d a n t . E v e n i f ! f o u n d d e f e n d a n t ' s t h e o r y a b o u t p e n a l t i e s to b e
suffic~ently c o n c r e t e

a n d specific

t o m e e t t h e " l e g a l c e r t a i n t y " s t a n d a r d , I w o u l d find d e f e n d a n t ' s N o t i c e o f R e m o v a l t o b e untimely. Defendant had all t h e information it needed as o f October 14, 2008 to file a Notice o f R e m o v a l . The o n l y p i e c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n d e f e n d a n t l e a r n e d f r o m p l a i n t i f f ' s c o u n s e l d u r i n g t h e class certification hearing was the $10 average hourly wage p l a i n t i f f would assume. If, however, defendant had assumed $7 was the average hourly wage (minimum wage rates ranged from between $6.50 to $7.80 for the class period), i t would have concluded that i t would face $ 4 , 5 0 4 , 0 8 0 i n p e n a l t i e s . S u c h p e n a l t i e s t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e d a m a g e s for s u b s t a n t i v e v i o l a t i o n s a n d attorney fees would exceed the statutory minimum under CAFA. P l a i n t i f f supplied the number o f employees in each class i n its briefing, the last o f which was served no later t h a n October 14, 2 0 0 8 , a n d i t s p o s i t i o n o n p e n a l t i e s is i n i t s C o m p l a i n t . A s a r e s u l t , s i n c e d e f e n d a n t c o u l d h a v e first ascertained that the case was removable as o f October 14 at the latest, its Notice o f Removal filed o n November 26, 2008, is untimely. Plaintiff seeks costs and attorneys' fees for filing the motion to remand. Defendant does not respond to this request. P u r s u a n t t o 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). the Court " m a y require payment o f j u s t costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees. incurred as a result o f the removal." I decline to award costs o r attorney fees.

Page 11 - OPINION AND O R D E R

CONCLUSION F o r t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , p l a i n t i f f ' s M o t i o n to R e m a n d ( # 1 0 ) i s G R A N T E D . IT IS SO ORDERED. D a t e d this

iI '
Garr M. King U n i t e d States D i s t r i c t J u d g e

;(.9 -<laY of January, 2009.

d M v L Z )~ ;
V

Page 12 - OPINION AND O R D E R