Hernandez v. Towne Park, Ltd., CASE NO. CV 12-02972 MMM (JCGx)
| Decision Date | 22 June 2012 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. CV 12-02972 MMM (JCGx) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | GUILMER HERNANDEZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TOWNE PARK, LTD., a Maryland corporation; BOBBY KUHNS, an individual; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. |
On February 28, 2012, Guilmer Hernandez filed this putative wage and hour class action in Los Angeles Superior Court against Towne Park, Ltd., Bobby Kuhns, and certain fictitious defendants.1 On April 4, 2012, Towne Park removed the action, invoking the court's jurisdiction under the general diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), and the Class Action Fairness Act of2005 ("CAFA").2 Hernandez has now filed a motion to remand.3 Towne Park opposes the motion.4
Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, the court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. The hearing calendared for June 25, 2012, is hereby vacated.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Hernandez is a resident of Los Angeles, California.5 Towne Park, Ltd., is a Maryland corporation doing business in California.6 Bobby Kuhns was Hernandez's district manager and resides in California.7
Hernandez was employed as a non-exempt, hourly worker from June 2010 to January 14, 2012, at defendants' Los Angeles business location.10 He alleges on information and belief that employees were not paid for all hours worked because the hours were not recorded or were "erased." Hernandez also alleges that defendants knew or should have known that class members were entitled to, but did not receive, overtime compensation for their work.11 Similarly, he contends that class members were not paid minimum wage for off-the-clock work,12 that they did not receive the meal and rest periods to which they were entitled,13 that they were not timely paid all wages on termination, and that they were the victims of various other violations of the California Labor Code.14 Hernandez asserts that defendants' failure to comply with California law was "willful[ ], knowing[ ], and intentional[ ]," and that they falsely told class members they had been properly paid to increase defendants' profits.15
Hernandez pleads the following state law claims on his own behalf and on behalf of members of the class: (1) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198; (2) failure to pay minimum wage in violation of Labor Code §§ 1194, 1197, and 1197.1; (3) failure to timely pay wages on termination in violation of Labor Code §§ 201 and 202; (4) failure to provide compliant wage statements to class members in violation of Labor Code § 226(a); and (5) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Business andProfessions Code § 17200 et seq.16
He seeks "damages, restitution penalties, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars[ ], but less than five million dollars[ ], exclusive of interests and costs."17 He also reserves the right to seek a larger amount based on "new and different information resulting from investigation and discovery."18 The complaint further states that the total amount in controversy for each class member is less than $75,000, and that the aggregate amount in controversy for the entire class is less than $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs. In his prayer for relief, Hernandez seek unpaid wages and "general and special damages as may be appropriate" on the overtime and minimum wage claims,19 "actual, consequential and incidental losses and damages" on the meal and rest period and wage statement claims,20 civil penalties on the wage statement claims under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), California Labor Code § 2698, et seq.,21 and prejudgment interest.
In their notice of removal, defendants invoked the court's jurisdiction under the general diversity statute and CAFA. As respects the former, the notice asserts that the complete diversity requirement is met because Hernandez he allegedly is a California resident, and Towne Park is a Maryland corporation.22 Towne Park contends that Kuhns has been fraudulently joined and that his citizenship should be disregarded for purposes of determining whether the court has diversityjurisdiction to hear the case.23
To demonstrate that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied, Towne Park cites the allegations in the complaint, which it supplements with the declaration of Beverly Valltos, its vice president of administration and compliance.24 Valltos states that Hernandez worked for Towne Park from June 17, 2010 to January 14, 2012, and voluntarily left the company on that date.25 When he was hired, his hourly wage was $11.55; by the time he left, it had increased to $11.61.26 Based on these figures, and the complaint's allegations, Towne Park offers the following estimates of the amount Hernandez has placed in controversy:
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
¦Plaintiff's Claim ¦Amount in Controversy ¦
+---------------------------------------+-----------------------¦
¦Unpaid Overtime Wages ¦$8,639.70 ¦
+---------------------------------------+-----------------------¦
¦Unpaid Minimum Wages and Penalties ¦$30,540.00 ¦
+---------------------------------------+-----------------------¦
¦Penalties for Failure to Pay Wages Upon¦$2,240.72 ¦
+---------------------------------------+-----------------------¦
¦Termination ¦ ¦
+---------------------------------------+-----------------------¦
¦Penalties for Issuing Inaccurate Wage ¦$2,250.00 ¦
+---------------------------------------+-----------------------¦
¦Statements ¦ ¦
+---------------------------------------+-----------------------¦
¦Penalties and Unpaid Wages for Missed ¦$24,297.30 ¦
+---------------------------------------+-----------------------¦
¦Meal and Rest Break Periods under PAGA ¦ ¦
+---------------------------------------+-----------------------¦
¦Restitution Under the UCL ¦$16,079.70 ¦
+---------------------------------------+-----------------------¦
¦Attorneys' Fees ¦$21,011.86 ¦
+---------------------------------------+-----------------------¦
¦Amount in Controversy Subtotal ¦$105,059.28 ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Towne Park also invokes jurisdiction under CAFA. The notice of removal asserts that CAFA's minimal diversity requirement is met, since Hernandez is more likely than not aCalifornia citizen and Towne Park is a citizen of Maryland.27 Valltos states that during the putative class period, Towne Park employed 2,645 individuals as guest service associate valets, 1,706 of which were terminated or left the company.28 The average class member's length of employment was 66 weeks; his or her average hourly wage was "at least $9.25."29 Class members were paid once every two weeks.30
Valltos reports that, between February 28, 2009 and February 29, 2012, Towne Park employed at least 1,902 putative class members at an average hourly wage of $9.25.31 She states that the average daily wage of a putative class member during this period was "at least $74," and that at least 963 class members were terminated or left over the three years.32 Finally, Valltos asserts that from February 28, 2011 to February 29, 2012, Towne Park employed at least 1,350 class members, at the average hourly wage of $9.12.33 Their average length of employment was 74 weeks.34
Based on these estimates and the allegations in Hernandez's complaint, Towne Park offers the following calculations regarding the amount in controversy on the class claims:
To continue reading
Request your trial