Rodriguez v. At & T Mobility Services LLC

Citation728 F.3d 975
Decision Date27 August 2013
Docket NumberNo. 13–56149.,13–56149.
PartiesRobert RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. AT & T MOBILITY SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

728 F.3d 975

Robert RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
AT & T MOBILITY SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 13–56149.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Aug. 5, 2013.
Filed Aug. 27, 2013.


[728 F.3d 976]


George W. Abele (argued), Elizabeth A. Brown, and Mario C. Ortega, Paul Hastings LLP, Los Angeles, CA; and Laurie E. Barnes, AT & T Mobility Services LLC, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant–Appellant.

Michael S. Morrison (argued), Alexander Krakow & Glick, LLP, Santa Monica, CA; Thomas W. Falvey and J.D. Henderson, Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey, Pasadena, CA; Jason W. Wucetich, Dimitrios V. Korovilas, Wucetich & Korovilas LLP, El Segundo, CA, for Plaintiff–Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:12–cv–03694–GW–FMO.
Before: RICHARD C. TALLMAN, RICHARD R. CLIFTON, and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

CLIFTON, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff Robert Rodriguez filed a putative class action in state court, which Defendant removed to federal district court. Defendant contended that there was federal jurisdiction over the action under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), Pub.L. No. 109–2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005), and in particular 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). Rodriguez alleged that the amount in controversy did not exceed $5 million, as required for federal jurisdiction, and purported to waive any claim by the class in excess of that amount. Based on that waiver, the district court granted Rodriguez's motion to remand the case to state court. The Supreme Court later held that such a waiver was ineffective, however. Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1345, 185 L.Ed.2d 439 (2013). As a result, we vacate the district court's order and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

In its remand order, the district court held that to establish federal jurisdiction over a putative class action, Defendant must demonstrate to a “legal certainty” that the amount in controversy exceeded the $5 million threshold amount, based

[728 F.3d 977]

upon our decision to that effect in Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank National Association, 479 F.3d 994, 999 (9th Cir.2007). Our reasoning there for imposing on defendants the burden to prove the amount in controversy to a legal certainty, rather than the ordinary preponderance of the evidence standard, is clearly irreconcilable with the Supreme Court's reasoning in Standard Fire. As a result, we hold that Lowdermilk has been effectively overruled, and that the proper burden of proof imposed upon a defendant to establish the amount in controversy is the preponderance of the evidence standard.

I. Background

Plaintiff Robert Rodriguez brought a putative class action against AT & T Mobility Services, LLC, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated retail sales managers of AT & T wireless stores in Los Angeles and Ventura counties. Rodriguez asserted various claims under California law related to alleged unpaid wages, overtime compensation, and damages for statutory violations. Rodriguez filed his original complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court. AT & T removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).

Rodriguez moved to remand the case to California state court, arguing that AT & T could not establish subject-matter jurisdiction in federal court. Specifically, Rodriguez argued that the total amount in controversy in this putative class action did not exceed $5 million, the minimum amount for federal jurisdiction as required by § 1332(d). Rodriguez pointed to his First Amended Complaint, in which he alleged as much, that “the aggregate amount in controversy is less than five million dollars.” To bolster his position, in that pleading, Rodriguez also “waive[d] seeking more than five million dollars ($5,000,000) regarding the aggregate amount in controversy for the class claims alleged.”

AT & T attempted to establish that the amount in controversy did in fact exceed $5 million by submitting several sworn declarations from AT & T representatives regarding the potential number of class members and size of their claims. AT & T argued that Rodriguez's allegations, coupled with the sworn declarations, established that the amount in controversy could not be less than roughly $5.5 million and was likely double that amount.

The district court rejected AT & T's argument and ordered remand to state court. The court noted that the amount in controversy was the only jurisdictional requirement at issue in this case and that a defendant seeking removal of an action to federal court bears the burden of establishing the grounds for federal jurisdiction, propositions that the parties did not dispute. Citing our decision in Lowdermilk, the district court held that AT & T “must demonstrate to a legal certainty that more than $5,000,000 is at issue in this case.” AT & T could not do so, the court held, because Rodriguez's “ ‘disclaimer’ of any recovery exceeding $5,000,000 effectively foreclosed the jurisdictional issue.” Because the waiver was controlling, the court reasoned that it “need not address the issues surrounding the parties' respective calculations of the amount in controversy as if there were no waiver or disclaimer of any amount exceeding $5,000,000.”

AT & T filed a petition to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1), which we granted on July 1, 2013.

II. Discussion

A defendant may remove to federal district court an action first brought in state court when the district court would have original jurisdiction.

[728 F.3d 978]

28 U.S.C. § 1441. Federal district courts have original subject matter jurisdiction over class actions in which a member of the plaintiff class is a citizen of a state different from any defendant and the aggregate amount of the class members' claims exceeds $5 million. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). The party seeking the federal forum bears the burden of establishing that the statutory requirements of federal jurisdiction have been met. Lewis v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 399 (9th Cir.2010). We review de novo a district court's remand order. Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir.2006).

As in the district court, the $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) is the only jurisdictional requirement disputed in this appeal.

A. Plaintiff's Waiver of Claim Amount

The remand ordered by the district court was explicitly based upon Rodriguez's waiver of any claim in excess of $5 million. Recently, however, and after the district court entered its order, the Supreme Court held that such a waiver was ineffective. In Standard Fire Insurance Company v. Knowles, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1345, 185 L.Ed.2d 439 (2013), the Court held that a lead plaintiff of a putative class could not foreclose a defendant's ability to establish the $5 million amount in controversy by stipulating prior to class certification that the amount in controversy is less than $5 million. Id. at 1347.

The Court reversed the district court's remand order because plaintiff's stipulation was not binding on the class and therefore could not resolve the amount-in-controversy question. Id. at 1350. The Court explained, “a plaintiff who files a proposed class action cannot legally bind members of the proposed class before the class is certified.” Id. at 1349. Thus, a plaintiff's “precertification stipulation does not bind anyone but himself.” Id. Requiring courts to “ignore a nonbinding stipulation,” the Court held, “does no more than require the federal judge to do ... what the statute requires, namely ‘aggregat[e]’ the ‘claims of the individual class members.’ ” Id. at 1350 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(6) (alteration in original)).

In our case, Rodriguez acknowledges that the district court's remand order must be vacated in light of Standard Fire. His waiver no longer has legal effect. Because the order to remand the case to state court relied solely on that waiver, it must be vacated and the matter remanded to district court for further consideration.

B. Burden of Proof

That brings us to the question of the standard to be applied on remand. The district court held that a heightened burden of proof applied to AT & T in establishing the requisite jurisdictional minimum. Under Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank National Association, 479 F.3d 994 (9th Cir.2007), when a class action complaint alleges damages below the jurisdictional minimum, the removing defendant must establish to a “legal certainty” that the amount in controversy in fact exceeds the jurisdictional requirement. Id. at 999. Based on Lowdermilk, the district court's decision in our case was correct at the time.

AT & T contends, however, that Standard Fire fatally undermines Lowdermilk's legal certainty standard such that it has been effectively overruled and should not apply on remand. Rather, AT & T argues that it need only establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million by a preponderance of the evidence, the standard that ordinarily applies where a plaintiff “fails to plead a specific amount of damages.” Id. at 998. Rodriguez disputes AT & T's reading of Standard Fire.

[728 F.3d 979]

1. The Binding Nature of Prior Precedent

As a three-judge panel of this circuit, we are bound by prior panel...

To continue reading

Request your trial
359 cases
  • McShane v. Dep't of Parks & Recreation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii
    • June 23, 2021
    ...... the[] case.") (internal citation omitted), overruled on other grounds recognized in , Rodriguez v. AT & T Mobility Servs. LLC , 728 F.3d 975, 981 (9th Cir. 2013).         For those ...Department of Social Services of City of N.Y. , 436 U.S. 658, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1978). Monell claims require ......
  • Apache Stronghold v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • June 24, 2022
    ......Trade Comm'n v. Consumer Def., LLC , 926 F.3d 1208, 1213 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Rodriguez v. AT & T Mobility Servs. LLC , 728 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir. 2013) ). If, as a panel, "we can apply ... raised triable issues of fact regarding his claims that "(1) there were no weekly Jewish services conducted at the prison; (2) he was unreasonably denied permission to attend a special service on ......
  • Grigoryan v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • December 18, 2014
    ......EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., an Ohio corporation; Equifax Information Services, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company; and Trans Union, LLC, a Delaware limited liability ...See Rodriguez v. AT & T Mobility Servs. LLC, 728 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir.2013) (“As a three-judge panel of this ......
  • California v. Trump
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • December 11, 2019
    ...... See City and County of San Francisco v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services , No. 19-17213, 944 F.3d 773, 808–09, 2019 WL 6726131, *27 (9th Cir. Dec. 5, 2019), Dkt. No. 27 ... court] to look at more than the surface conclusions of the competing authority." Rodriguez v. AT & T Mobility Servs. LLC , 728 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted). At this ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
6 books & journal articles
  • Pleading
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Litigating Employment Discrimination Cases. Volume 1-2 Volume 2 - Practice
    • May 1, 2023
    ...v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc. , 479 F.3d 994, 1000 (9th Cir. 2007), abrogated on other grounds by Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Services LLC , 728 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2013). In Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345 (2013), the Supreme Court held that the class-action plaintiff cou......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Indirect Purchaser Litigation Handbook. Second Edition
    • December 5, 2016
    ...(Tenn. Cir. Ct. 1996), 33, 115 Roche v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 2007 WL 2003092 (S.D. Ill. 2007), 104 Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Servs.,728 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2013), 103 Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009), 298 Romero v. Philip Morris, Inc.,109 P.3d 768 (N.M. Ct. App. ......
  • Jurisdiction and Choice of law Issues in the Indirect Purchaser action
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Indirect Purchaser Litigation Handbook. Second Edition
    • December 5, 2016
    ...apply lesser standard when complaint is silent on damages sought). 72. 133 S. Ct. 1345 (2013). 73 . Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Servs., 728 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2013) (overruling Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2007)). Lowdermilk and Rodriguez involved slightly diff......
  • What's in the Package: Food, Beverage, and Dietary Supplement Law and Litigation—part Ii
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 43-8, August 2014
    • Invalid date
    ...v. U.S. Bank Natl Ass'n, 479 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds as stated in Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, 728 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2013). See also Coffey v. Freeport McMoran Copper & Gold, 581 F.3d 1240, 1243 (10th Cir. 2009). Of course, if a plaintiff brings ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT