Ott v. Cooper Interconnect, Inc.

• Docket Number: 2:23-cv-04501-SPG-JC
• Decision Date: 25 August 2023
• Parties: DALETTE OTT and LOIRA SANCHEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COOPER INTERCONNECT, INC. a corporation; EATON CORPORATION, a corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California

1

DALETTE OTT and LOIRA SANCHEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
COOPER INTERCONNECT, INC. a corporation; EATON CORPORATION, a corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-04501-SPG-JC

United States District Court, C.D. California

August 25, 2023

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND [ECF NO. 15]

HON. SHERILYN PEACE GARNETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Dalette Ott's and Loira Sanchez's motion to remand this proposed class action to the Superior Court of California for the County of Ventura. (ECF No. 15). Defendant opposes. (ECF No. 21). Having considered the parties' submissions, the relevant law, the record in this case, and the parties' oral arguments, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand.

2

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Dalette Ott and Loira Sanchez (together “Plaintiffs”) allege that Defendants Cooper Interconnect, Inc. and Eaton Corporation (together “Defendants”) have violated California's wage and hour laws. (ECF No. 1-1). On April 25, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of Ventura. (Id.). Plaintiffs assert eight causes of action, including a wide range of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code, such as failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. (Id.). Plaintiffs also assert a cause of action for unfair business practices under California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200. (Id.). Finally, Plaintiffs seek an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to California Labor Code § 1194(a). (Id. at 24). On June 8, 2023, Defendants timely removed this action from LASC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (ECF No. 1 (“NOR”)). On July 10, 2023, Plaintiffs timely filed the instant motion to remand. (ECF No. 15 (“Mot.”)). Defendants opposed on August 2, 2023, (ECF No. 21 (“Opp.”)), and Plaintiffs replied on August 9, 2023. (ECF No. 22 (“Reply”)).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

To remove a case from a state court to a federal court, a defendant must file a notice of removal “containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). When removal is based on diversity of citizenship, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000 and the parties must be diverse. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In a class action brought outside the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), at least one named plaintiff in the class must satisfy the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 558 (2005); see also Lewis v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 398 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Prior to CAFA, a class action could be heard in federal court under diversity jurisdiction only if there was complete diversity, i.e., all class representatives were diverse from all defendants, and if at least one named plaintiff satisfied the amount in controversy requirement of more than $75,000.”); Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 858 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that “if a named

3

plaintiff in a diversity class action has a claim with an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000, 28 U.S.C. § 1367 confers supplemental jurisdiction over claims of unnamed class members irrespective of the amount in controversy in those claims”).

The party invoking the removal statute bears the burden of establishing that federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists. Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). “The removal statute is strictly construed, and any doubt about the right of removal requires resolution in favor of remand.” Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009). Moreover, if it is “unclear or ambiguous from the face of a state-court complaint whether the requisite amount in controversy is pled, the removing defendant bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Urbino v. Orkin Servs. of Cal., Inc., 726 F.3d 1118, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs argue that Defendant has failed to establish that the amount in controversy^[1]exceeds $75,000 for two reasons. First, Plaintiffs challenge the accuracy and reasonableness of Defendants' calculation of damages for the alleged California Labor Code violations. Second, Plaintiffs challenge Defendants' calculation of attorneys' fees, arguing that it is improperly speculative and improperly includes future fees as to Plaintiffs' meal and rest break claims.

A. Defendants' Amount in Controversy for Plaintiffs' Wage and Hour Claims

“A removing defendant's notice of removal need not contain evidentiary submissions but only plausible allegations of jurisdictional elements.” Salter v. Quality Carriers, Inc.,

4

974 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal citation omitted). However, if a plaintiff then contests the allegations in the notice of removal, both sides may “submit proof and the court decides, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the amount in controversy requirement has been satisfied.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 82 (2014). A plaintiff may contest the allegations in the notice of removal in two ways. First, a plaintiff may bring a “facial” attack” which “accepts the truth of the . . . allegations but asserts that they ‘are insufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction.'” Salter, 974 F.3d at 964 (quoting Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014)). When a plaintiff mounts a facial attack, the court resolves it in much the same way as a motion to dismiss-by accepting the allegations as true, drawing all reasonable inferences in the defendant's favor, and determining whether the allegations are sufficient to invoke the court's jurisdiction. Id. Alternatively, a plaintiff may bring a “factual attack,” which “contests the truth of the . . . factual allegations, usually by introducing evidence outside the pleadings.” Id. When a plaintiff brings a factual attack, the defendant must support its allegations with “competent proof” under a summaryjudgment-like standard. Id.

The parties here appear to dispute whether Plaintiff has mounted a facial or factual attack. Plaintiff argues that Defendants must produce summary judgment type evidence in to support the allegations regarding the amount in controversy. Therefore, Plaintiff appears to argue that the Court should treat its Motion as a factual attack on Defendant's amount in controversy allegations. Defendant, on the other hand, argues that Plaintiff's own lack of evidence challenging the factual validity of the amounts in controversy dictates that Plaintiff has merely brought a facial challenge. The Court disagrees with Defendant.

A plaintiff may mount a factual attack without introducing evidence outside the pleadings where he or she “challenge[s] the truth of the defendant's jurisdictional allegations by making a reasoned argument as to why any assumptions on which they are based are not supported by evidence.” Harris v. KM Industrial, Inc., 980 F.3d 694, 700 (9th Cir. 2020). Here, while Plaintiffs do not provide evidence in support of their

5

challenges to Defendants' assumptions, Plaintiffs do challenge the reasonableness of the assumptions as to Defendants' damages calculation of meal and rest break violations....