Drivers Take A U-Turn To State Court For Their Training-Pay.
Smith v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., Slip Copy, 2010 WL 399126 (S.D.Cal., Jan 28, 2010)(NO. 09CV2885LWMC).
This case was remanded to state court because the facts and arguments presented in the defendant’s notice of removal did not meet the burden of establishing removal jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs, truck drivers, brought a class action alleging that their employer, CRST Van Expedited Inc., failed to pay them minimum wages for attending orientation and driver training programs and for reporting to cancelled assignments in violation of California Labor Code. The plaintiffs requested liquidated damages, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. The complaint, however, did not specify the amount of damages sought.
CRST removed the action based on CAFA’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) asserting that the matter in controversy exceeded the sum of $5 million. The District Court, however, remanded the action to state court holding that facts and arguments presented in the notice of removal did not meet the burden of showing that it was more likely than not that the jurisdictional amount was met in this case.
In doing so, the District Court observed that because the complaint did not specify the amount of damages sought, CRST must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy satisfied the federal diversity jurisdictional amount requirement. But CRST provided only argument, no evidence, in support of its contention.
Upon closer examination, the District Court found that even CRST’s arguments fell apart – particularly, CRST’s claim that its calculations of the amount in controversy were supported by the allegations in the complaint were inaccurate. The complaint alleged that the driver orientation program lasted three or four days, while CRST’s calculations were based entirely on a four-day program, and CRST’s reliance on an eight-hour day for the orientation program was unsupported by the complaint, which was silent on this issue. Similarly, the District Court observed that CRST’s calculation of the amount at issue for cancelled assignments was based on estimates of the number of cancelled assignments, but there was not even an allegation of factual support for the estimates, much less any evidence.
Posted By McGlinchey Stafford at 06:30 AM
|
Comments / Questions (0)