Ramos v. TDB Communications, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Irene Ramos, No. 2:22-cv-00479-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 TDB Communications, Inc., et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Irene Ramos brought this putative wage-and-hour class action against her 18 | employers, defendants TDB Communications, Inc. and Gainwell Technologies, LLC, in 19 | Sacramento County Superior Court. Defendant Gainwell timely removed to this court, invoking 20 | the court’s jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Defendant TDB consents to 21 | removal. Plaintiff has moved to remand, arguing defendants failed to establish the amount in 22 | controversy exceeds $5 million. As explained below, the court finds defendants have not 23 | established it is more likely than not the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million; the court 24 | therefore grants plaintiff's motion. 25 | I. DISCUSSION 26 Plaintiff worked for defendants as a customer service representative from July to 27 | September 2021. FAC § 17, Not. Removal Ex. B, ECF No. 1-3. Defendant TDB hired her to 28 | work as temporary staff for defendant Gainwell. /d. § 20. During her employment, she reported 1 to supervisors for both defendants. Id. Plaintiff sued defendants in 2021, alleging unfair business 2 practices and six violations of the California Labor Code: (1) failure to provide complete itemized 3 wage statements in violation of section 226(a); (2) failure to pay minimum wage in violation of 4 section 1194; (3) failure to provide meal period premiums in violation of sections 226.7 and 5 512(a); (4) failure to timely pay wages upon termination in violation of sections 201 to 203; 6 (5) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of sections 510 and 1194; and (6) failure to 7 reimburse business expenses in violation of sections 2800 and 2802. See generally id. Plaintiff 8 also seeks civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act, Labor Code section 2698 9 et seq. Id. ¶¶ 72–75. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all current and former hourly-paid or 10 non-exempt employees who worked for either defendant in California at any time between 11 October 21, 2017 and October 21, 2021. Id. ¶ 12; see also Mot. Remand at 4, ECF No. 3. 12 As noted, defendant Gainwell timely removed to this court, invoking this court’s 13 jurisdiction under CAFA. See generally Not. Removal, ECF No. 1. Gainwell determined 14 removal was appropriate after receiving plaintiff’s first set of discovery requests, which suggested 15 plaintiff sought to represent a class including Gainwell’s direct non-exempt employees, not—as 16 Gainwell previously understood—just individuals jointly employed by TDB and Gainwell. Id. 17 ¶ 4. Defendant TDB consents to removal. Not. Removal, Ex. E, ECF No. 1-6. Plaintiff moved 18 to remand, arguing this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because defendants have not shown 19 more than $5 million dollars is in controversy. See generally Mot. Remand. Gainwell concedes 20 plaintiff’s claims place only $4,125,009 in controversy, but it argues the amount in controversy 21 exceeds $5 million “once attorneys’ fees are taken into account . . . .” Opp’n at 10, ECF No. 4. 22 The court received full briefing and submitted the matter without oral argument. See Opp’n, ECF 23 No. 4; Reply, ECF No. 5; Min. Order, ECF No. 6. 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 1 Even assuming without deciding that Gainwell’s $4,125,0091 calculation is accurate, 2 Gainwell falls far short of proving the amount of attorneys’ fees at stake by a preponderance of 3 the evidence. Gainwell estimates the attorneys’ fees at issue here by assuming attorneys’ fees 4 will be 25 percent of plaintiff’s potential damages. See Not. Removal ¶¶ 43–48; Opp’n at 11. 5 Gainwell does not support this argument with any evidence, arguing only that “this Court has 6 previously found this precise figure permissible in the context of evaluating CAFA jurisdiction.” 7 Opp’n at 11 (citing, e.g., Marshall v. Faneuil, Inc., No. 17-01975, 2018 WL 3738372, at *5 (E.D. 8 Cal. Aug. 7, 2018)). However, as the Ninth Circuit recently explained, courts in this circuit 9 require a removing defendant to prove that the amount in controversy (including 10 attorneys’ fees) exceeds the jurisdictional threshold by a preponderance of the 11 evidence. We also require the defendant to make this showing with summary- 12 judgment-type evidence, [citing cases]. A district court may reject the defendant’s 13 attempts to include future attorneys’ fees in the amount in controversy if the 14 defendant fails to satisfy this burden of proof. 15 Fritsch v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, 899 F.3d 785, 795 (9th Cir. 2018). 16 Gainwell’s conclusory assertion that the amount of attorneys’ fees in controversy here is 17 25 percent of plaintiff’s alleged recovery is simply insufficient to meet Gainwell’s evidentiary 18 burden at this stage. See id. at 796 (declining to adopt per se rule that amount of attorneys’ fees 19 in controversy in class actions is 25 percent of all other alleged recovery because doing so would 20 “relieve the defendant of its evidentiary burden”). 21 II. CONCLUSION 22 Because Gainwell has not shown it is more likely than not that $5 million is in 23 controversy, the court grants plaintiff’s motion to remand. 24 ///// 1 Gainwell’s notice of removal initially estimated plaintiff’s claims to place $4,449,400 in controversy, of which $2,860,000 was for meal and rest break violations alone. Not. Removal ¶ 41. Plaintiff only objected to Gainwell’s estimate of the value of the meal and rest break violations, arguing four violations per pay period was a more reasonable estimate than Gainwell’s ten. Mot. Remand at 10. In its opposition to plaintiff’s motion to remand, Gainwell revised the estimated number of meal and rest break violations to be eight per pay period, and added the updated value of TDB’s claims, bringing the total estimated value of the claims to $4,125,009. Opp’n at 11. ] This order resolves ECF No. 3. This order also vacates the hearing set for July 28, 2022 2 | and closes the case. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 | DATED: July 22, 2022. [\ (] 5 A | Wal X ¢ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE