Pae v. Fox Restaurant Concepts, LLC, 2017 WL 3184464 (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2017).

In this action, while denying the plaintiff’s motion to remand, a district court in California found that the plaintiff must prove beyond conclusory statements that certain employees of a corporation direct, control, or coordinate its activities to establish the corporation’s principal place of business.
Continue Reading

Castillo v. Western Range Ass’n, 2017 WL 1364584 (D. Nev. April 13, 2017).

In dismissing a wage-and-hour class action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada held that the CAFA’s amount-in-controversy requirement cannot be aggregated when each plaintiff’s claims are wholly unrelated to the other and when the defendants are not jointly liable.


Continue Reading

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

Henry Chen, et al. v. United Talent Agency, LLC, et al., 2017 WL 946642 (C.D. Cal. March 10, 2017).

A class action filed in state court was remanded by the U.S. District Court in California because the court found that the removing defendant improperly relied on PAGA penalties and anticipated but un-accrued attorney’s fees to satisfy CAFA’s jurisdictional amount-in-controversy requirement.


Continue Reading

Taylor v. Cox Communications California, LLC, 2016 WL 7422717 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2016).

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order denying the plaintiff’s motion to remand, finding that the defendant’s second notice of removal was timely and proper, particularly when the plaintiff did not provide the defendant with any “other paper” necessary to trigger CAFA’s 30-day period for removing the case to the federal court.


Continue Reading

Ritenour v. Carrington Mortgage Services LLC, 2017 WL 59069 (C.D. Cal.  Jan. 5, 2017).

In this action, while denying the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, a district court in California, found that  the defendant only needs to offer evidence sufficient to establish that CAFA’s amount-in-controversy requirement was met by a preponderance of the evidence and was not obligated to research, state, and prove the plaintiffs’ claims for damages.
Continue Reading

Cisneros v. Lerner New York, Inc., 2016 WL 4059612 (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2016).

Plaintiffs, Ana Ciseneros and Farank Safa, filed this putative class action in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against their employer, Lerner New York, Inc. (“Lerner”), alleging eight causes of action including, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to pay wages on regularly established paydays and several violations of the California Labor Code. Lerner is a specialty manufacturer and retailer of women’s clothing and accessories. Plaintiff Ana Cisneros is an hourly employee in Lerner’s retail store and working as a Store Sales Leader and Faranak Safa is a former employee, and who was previously employed as a store manager.


Continue Reading

Dobbs v. Wood Group PSN, Inc., 2016 WL 4367218 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2016)

The District Court found that the defendant did not satisfy CAFA’s jurisdictional amount-in-controversy threshold. The defendant failed to demonstrate by preponderance of the evidence that its assumption of imputing a 100 percent violation rate was justified. The Court granted the plaintiff’s motion to remand.

The plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of Kern asserting claims against the defendant, his employer, for violations of the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code, including unpaid meal and rest premiums, unpaid overtime and minimum wages, waiting time penalties, etc. In his complaint, the plaintiff did not specify the amount of damages. The defendant, however, removed the action to federal court under CAFA, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), contending that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved to remand.


Continue Reading

Branch v. PM Realty Group, L.P., 647 Fed. App’x. 743 (9th Cir. 2016).

In this case, the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s order remanding the action finding that the defendant’s assumption of the amount-in-controversy objectively established that the amount-in-controversy exceeded CAFA’s jurisdictional minimum.


Continue Reading