Henry Hernandez v. Sysco Corp., 2017 WL 358021 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 25, 2017)

In this wage and hour class action, while denying the plaintiff’s motion to remand, a District Court in California found that it was the plaintiff’s burden to show that the local controversy requirement applied, not the defendants’ burden to show that it did not, and that the defendants need not allege facts in the notice of removal showing the inapplicability of the local controversy exception.

The plaintiff brought a putative class action in Alameda County Superior Court alleging that the defendants, inter alia, failed to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation, and provide meal and rest periods in violation of the California Labor Code.


Continue Reading

Reddick v. Global Contact Solutions, LLC, No. 15-425, 2015 WL 5056186 (D. Or. Aug. 26, 2015)

In this wage-payment dispute, the court remanded the case under CAFA’s home-state exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B), based on plaintiff’s unrebutted evidence that over 97.5% of the absentee class members were citizens of the forum state, Oregon.


Continue Reading

Levitt v. Sw. Airlines Co. (In re Sw. Airlines Voucher Litig.), 799 F.3d 701 (7th Cir., 2015)

The Seventh Circuit ruled that when the class members receive their relief in their entirety in a settlement due to the class counsel’s efforts, the class counsel should be compensated accordingly. The Seventh Circuit found the CAFA gives the district courts the discretion to apply the lodestar method in calculating their attorney’s fees in coupon settlements.

In August 2010, Southwest Airlines stopped honoring certain in-flight drink vouchers issued to customers who had bought “Business Select” fares. Southwest customers, Adam Levitt and Herbert Malone, brought a putative class action.  The parties reached a settlement to provide replacement drink vouchers to all members of the class, as well as injunctive relief constraining how Southwest could issue vouchers in the future.


Continue Reading

Turner v. Corinthian International Parking Services, Inc., 2015 WL 7768841 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2015).

A district court granted the plaintiff a chance to amend the complaint to clarify on the citizenship of the class members to ascertain whether the case was removable under CAFA.  In doing so, the Court relied on the Ninth

Emmons v Quest Diagnostics Clinical Labs Inc, 2014 WL 584393 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2014).

In this action, the federal court refused to accept the defendants’ attempt to establish amount-in-controversy exceeded $5 million through a declaration by one of its employees, finding that the declarations were not enough evidentiary support to retain jurisdiction under

Abdulhaq v. Urban Outfitters Wholesale, Inc., 2014 WL 2212119 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2014).

A district court in California remanded a case to the state court finding that the defendant’s attempt to show that the amount-in-controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold required the court to make assumptions that lacked evidentiary support, which did not meet

Locke v. American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida, 2014 WL 2091346 (E.D. Cal. May 19, 2014).

In a wage and hour action for violations of FLSA and California state laws, a district court in California refused to exercise jurisdiction over the action after the FLSA claims were dismissed, finding that a class of twenty-one

Serrano v. Bay Bread, LLC, 2014 WL 1813300 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2014).

A district court in California found that the presumption of continuing domicile applies only after it has been established; because the plaintiffs failed to establish the initial domicile of the class members, continued domicile cannot be presumed for the purposes of