Castellon v. MRC GLOBAL US INC. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LOUIS CASTELLON, individually, and No. 1:19-cv-00918-DAD-JLT on behalf of other members of the general 12 public similarly situated, 13 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE REGARDING 14 v. AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY 15 MRC GLOBAL US INC., (Doc. No. 11) 16 Defendant. 17 18 This matter came before the court on October 16, 2019 for hearing on plaintiff’s motion to 19 remand this class action to Kern County Superior Court, where it was initially filed on April 26, 20 2019.1 (Doc. No. 11.) Attorney Tara Zabehi appeared on behalf of plaintiff Louis Castellon and 21 the putative class. Attorney Ryan Crosner appeared on behalf of defendant MRC Global US, Inc. 22 On July 5, 2019, defendant timely removed this action to this court pursuant to the Class 23 Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). (Doc. No. 1.) On August 5, 2019, plaintiff 24 filed the pending motion to remand this action to state court, contending that defendant has failed 25 “to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million” 26 as required by the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). (Doc. No. 11 at 6, 9.) 27 28 1 The court apologizes to the parties for its delay in issuing this order. 1 Consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Ibarra v. Manheim Invs. Inc., 775 F.3d 2 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015), the court will now order the parties to submit additional evidence 3 related to the amount in controversy in this action. 4 In Ibarra, the defendant removed a wage and hour class action to federal court based on 5 CAFA jurisdiction and justified its calculation of the amount in controversy by relying on a 6 declaration from its senior director of employee services. 775 F.3d at 1198. However, the 7 defendant there “relied on an assumption about the rate of its alleged labor law violations that was 8 not grounded in real evidence,” and the plaintiff contested that assumption “but did not assert an 9 alternative violation rate grounded in real evidence, such as an affidavit by [plaintiff] asserting 10 how often he was denied meal and rest breaks.” Id. at 1199. Faced with this record, the Ninth 11 Circuit remanded the case back to the district court “for both sides to submit proof related to the 12 disputed amount in controversy.” Id.; see also Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. 13 Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 88 (2014) (holding that when the defendant’s assertion of the amount in 14 controversy is challenged, “both sides submit proof and the court decides, by a preponderance of 15 the evidence, whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied”). 16 In remanding the matter, the Ninth Circuit gave further guidance that “[u]nder the 17 preponderance of the evidence standard, if the evidence submitted by both sides is balanced, in 18 equipoise, the scales tip against federal-court jurisdiction.” Ibarra, 775 F.3d at 1199. However, 19 the Ninth Circuit has also noted, “[w]here a removing defendant has shown potential recovery 20 ‘could exceed $5 million and the [p]laintiff has neither acknowledged nor sought to establish that 21 the class recovery is potentially any less,’ the defendant ‘has borne its burden to show the amount 22 in controversy exceeds $5 million.’” Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott, 936 F.3d 920, 927 (9th 23 Cir. 2019) (quoting Lewis v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 401 (9th Cir. 2010). 24 Here, defendant has submitted some evidence in the form of two declarations from 25 Cassandra Howell, defendant’s Corporate Payroll and STI Plan Manager (Doc. Nos. 4, 18-4) and 26 plaintiff has not submitted any evidence in connection with his motion to remand. The parties 27 should not interpret this order as an indication that defendant’s evidentiary showing up to this 28 point is insufficient; the court makes no such determination at this time. Rather, as the court 1 | indicated at the hearing on the pending motion, the court simply finds it prudent and consistent 2 | with Ninth Circuit precedent for the parties to submit additional evidence related to the violation 3 | rate and the disputed amount in controversy to assist the court in making that determination under 4 | the standards set out above. 5 Accordingly, the parties are ordered to submit any additional evidence they wish to submit 6 | regarding the amount in controversy in this action within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this 7 | order. 8 | IT IS SOORDERED. a 9 ji je Ff; Dated: _ April 2, 2020 Aa oe 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28