Mackall v. Healthsource Global Staffing, Inc. Case No. 16-cv-03810 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2016).

A district court in California found that allegations of wilful failure to timely pay wages are sufficient to support estimations of waiting time penalties at a 100% rate.

The plaintiff, Karen Mackall, filed this putative class action in the Superior Court of California, county of Alameda, on behalf of a class of all current and former non-exempt hourly Registered Nurses employed by the defendant. The plaintiff alleged causes of action for failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to provide meal and rest periods; failure to keep accurate payroll records; and failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees etc. The plaintiff also asserted a claim under PAGA.

The defendant removed the action under CAFA asserting minimal diversity claiming that it was a citizen of California, whereas, the home mailing addresses for the putative class members established that many them were citizens of other states. The defendant asserted that the class consisted of at least 1,242 putative class members and the amount-in-controversy exceeded $5 million.

The plaintiff responded with a motion to remand arguing that the defendant failed to prove that the amount-in-controversy exceeded CAFA’s statutory requirement of $5 million. The amount-in-controversy was the only dispute between the parties.
Continue Reading California Waiting Time Penalties May Benefit Employers in Establishing the Amount in Controversy

Crookshanks v. Healthport Technologics, LLC, 2016 WL4099296 (S.D. W.Va. Aug. 2, 2016).

In Crookshanks v. Healthport Technologies, a district court in West Virginia remanded an action to state court because the defendants’’ calculation of the amount in controversy was insufficient to satisfy CAFA’’ s jurisdictional threshold.

In this case, Crookshanks, representing himself and others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia against Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc. (“”CAMC”” ) and HealthPort Technologies, LLC (“”HealthPort”” ). Crookshanks was a patient at a CAMC facility in 2015. He subsequently sent a letter to CAMC requesting copies of his medical records and bills. HealthPort, acting as CAMC’’ s medical records manager, charged Crookshanks $4,463.43 for the records. This payment was passed on HealthPort’’ s $0.55 per page fee.

Plaintiffs filed the class action lawsuit arguing that the fee was not a “” reasonable, cost-based fee”” as required by section 16-29-2 of the West Virginia Code. Plaintiffs defined the class as any person who (1) requested copies of his or her medical records from any health care provider in West Virginia during the class period; (2) had his request handled by HealthPort; and (3) paid fees charged by CAMC or HealthPort. The defendants removed the action to the federal court pursuant to CAFA and alleged minimum diversity of citizenship, an aggregate amount in controversy in excess of $5 million (exclusive of interest and costs), and a class size greater than 100 persons. The plaintiffs moved to remand.
Continue Reading West Virginia District Court Remands Putative Class Action because Defendants Failed to Establish the Requisite Amount in Controversy

Williams v. Employees Mut. Cas. Co., 2014 WL 1375470 (E.D. Mo. April 8, 2014).

In a garnishment action to collect insurance proceeds brought by a lone plaintiff, the District Court found that it satisfied the requirements of CAFA removal because an action to collect insurance proceeds brought by the class representative was in substance a class action.

The plaintiff Barbara Williams filed this action in the Circuit Court for Lincoln County, Missouri.  The action was filed on behalf of a previously certified class to recover a $82,037,000 judgment obtained in a separate state court action styled Williams v. The Collier Organization (hereinafter referred to as the “Original Lawsuit”).
Continue Reading A Class Action By Any Other Name is Still a Class Action

Padron v. Onewest Bank, 2014 WL 1364901 (C.D. Cal. April 7, 2014).

In this action, the District Court declined to exercise jurisdiction under CAFA because the plaintiffs could not show that all of their claims were a result of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.

One hundred and twenty-one plaintiffs joined together in this action against the defendants, OneWest Bank, FSB, and various mortgage servicers, trustees, and an appraiser, in Los Angeles County Superior Court.  Plaintiffs filed various claims alleging that the defendants were no longer acting as conventional money lenders, but instead morphed in to an enterprise engaged in systematic fraud upon its borrowers.  The defendants removed the action to federal court invoking mass action jurisdiction under CAFA.Continue Reading Plaintiffs’ Real Estate Transactions Cannot Be Considered for Purposes of Joinder Under Rule 20(a)

Controulis v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC, 2013 WL 6482970 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2013).

The plaintiff, employed as a bottler by the defendant, Anheuser-Busch, LLC, brought an action alleging that the defendant violated California law by including the value of free beer in the regular rate of pay.

The terms of the plaintiff’s employment were governed by

Woods v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 2014 WL 360185 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2014).

A District Court in California remanded an action for failure to establish the amount in controversy holding that a defendant seeking removal of a putative class action must demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, that the aggregate amount in controversy exceeded the

Chapin v. Whitecap Investment Corp., 2014 WL 656971 (D.V.I. Feb. 20, 2014).

The plaintiffs in this matter are St. John property owners.  The plaintiffs brought this action against defendants, Whitecap Investment Corp. and Paradise Lumber, in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands alleging breach of contract, breach of warranty, negligence, strict product liability, and

Greco v. Jones, 2014 WL 177410 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 16, 2014).

In this case, the plaintiffs, 237 ticket holders to Super Bowl XLV, brought an action alleging that they were denied, relocated, delayed seating, and/or, redirected to seats with obstructed views.  The plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement and concealment, negligent misrepresentation,