Garcia v. Quest Grp. Consulting
| Decision Date | 26 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-cv-02041-H-WVG |
| Parties | MARIA A. GARCIA, individually and on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. QUEST GROUP CONSULTING, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company; QUEST GROUP SEARCH, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company; DOUGLAS SHAENER, an individual; JASON HANGES, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND; AND [DOC. NO. 7.] (2) DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT [DOC. NO. 3.]
On December 13, 2021, Defendants Quest Group Consulting, LLC Quest Group Search, LLC, Douglas Shaener, and Jason Hanges filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff Maria Garcia's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 3.) On December 30, 2021, Plaintiff Maria A. Garcia filed a motion to remand the action back to state court. (Doc. No. 7.) On January 13, 2022, Defendants filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff's motion to remand. (Doc. No. 9.) On January 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed a reply in support of her motion to remand. (Doc. No. 10.)
A hearing on Plaintiff's motion to remand is scheduled for Monday, January 31, 2022 at 10:30 a.m., and a hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss is scheduled for Monday February 28, 2022 at 10:30 a.m. The Court, pursuant to its discretion under Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), determines the matters are appropriate for resolution without oral argument, submits the motions on the parties' papers, and vacates the hearings. For the reasons below, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion to remand, and the Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss as moot.
The following background is taken from the allegations in Plaintiff's state court complaint. Defendants are temporary service employers within the meaning of California Labor Code § 201.3(a)(1). Defendants employed Plaintiff and other employees on an hourly basis as non-exempt workers to perform work in California for various customers. (Id. ¶ 19.) Specifically, Defendants employed Plaintiff as a youth care worker to supervise unaccompanied migrant children who were temporarily housed in California. (Id. ¶ 21.)
Plaintiff alleges that during her employment, Defendants violated various sections of the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 39-71.) In addition, Plaintiff alleges that when she was a job applicant, Defendants procured an investigative consumer report regarding Plaintiff after requiring her to sign a deficient disclosure form in violation of the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (the “ICRAA”), California Civil Code § 1786, et seq. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 75-91.)
On October 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego against Defendants, alleging nine claims under the California Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”), California Labor Code §§ 2698, 2699; and one claim for violations of the ICRAA. (Doc. No. 1-2, Compl.) On December 6, 2021, Defendants removed the action to United States District Court for the Southern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Doc. No. 1, Notice of Removal ¶¶ 1, 56-60.)
By the present motion, Plaintiff moves to remand the action back to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. No. 7-1 at 12.) In addition, Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 3 at 1-8.)
I. Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand
“A defendant generally may remove a civil action if a federal district court would have original jurisdiction over the action.” Allen v. Boeing Co., 784 F.3d 625 628 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)); see Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and, as such, cannot exercise jurisdiction without constitutional and statutory authorization.” Hansen v. Grp. Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2018). There is a strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, and courts strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction. See Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010). “The removing defendant bears the burden of overcoming the ‘strong presumption against removal jurisdiction.'” Hansen, 902 F.3d at 1057; see also Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986) ().
Here, Defendants removed the action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Doc. No. 1, Notice of Removal ¶¶ 1, 56-60.) “Traditional diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy greater than $75, 000.” Canela v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 971 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)).
Plaintiff argues that diversity jurisdiction is lacking in this case because the amount in controversy for this case is well below the $75, 000 requirement. (Doc. No. 7-1 at 4-11.) “Where, as here, ‘a plaintiffs state court complaint does not specify a particular amount of damages, the removing [party] bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds' the threshold at the time of removal.” Canela, 971 F.3d at 849.
In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges nine PAGA claim against the Defendants. In their notice of removal, Defendants contend that the amount in controversy for Plaintiff's PAGA claims is $4, 250 plus attorney's fees. (See Doc. No. 1, Notice of Removal ¶¶ 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, 32, 35, 38, 47.) In her motion to remand, Plaintiff contends that this calculation is incorrect and that the proper amount in controversy for her PAGA claims including attorney's fees is $2, 125. (Doc. No. 7-1 at 5-9.) In response, Defendants state that, for the purposes of Plaintiff's motion to remand only, Defendants are willing to concede to Plaintiff's amount in controversy calculation for her PAGA claims. (Doc. No. 9 at 2 n.3, 5 n.4.)
Thus, for the purposes of analyzing Plaintiff's motion to remand, the parties are in agreement that the amount in controversy for Plaintiff's PAGA claims including attorney's fees is $2, 125. As such, in order for Plaintiff's complaint to satisfy the $75, 000 amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff's remaining claim, her ICRAA claim, must have an amount in controversy of at least $72, 875. The Court addresses the amount in controversy for Plaintiff's ICRAA claim below.
In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges a claim for violations of the ICRAA against Defendants Quest Consulting and Quest Group Search. Defendants contend that the amount in controversy for Plaintiff's ICRAA claim is $120, 000 plus attorney's fees. (Doc. No. 9 at 4.) Plaintiff argues that Defendants' calculation is incorrect and that the proper amount in controversy for her ICRAA claim is $20, 000 plus attorney's fees. (Doc. No. 7-1 at 11.)
California's ICRAA is intended “to ensure that entities engaged in assembling and evaluating information on consumers for employment, insurance, and housing purposes do so fairly, impartially, and with respect for the consumer's privacy.” Palma v. Cty. of Stanislaus, No. 1:17-CV-0819 AWI EPG, 2017 WL 6513282, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2017) (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 1786(b)); see Connor v. First Student, Inc., 5 Cal. 5th 1026, 1032 (2018). Relevant here, California Civil Code § 1786.16(a) of the ICRAA provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial