Daniel Rodas v. The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

[1] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [5] Daniel Rodas, [6] Plaintiff, Case No. 2:21-cv-07526-VAP-(KESx) [7] v. Order DENYING 8 The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 17) [9] Company et al., [10] Defendants. [12] Plaintiff Daniel Rodas (“Rodas”) filed a Motion to Remand (“Motion”) [13] on October 20, 2021. (Doc. No. 17.) Defendant The Goodyear Tire and [14] Rubber Company (“Goodyear”) opposed the Motion on November 8, 2021, [15] (Doc. No. 18), and Rodas replied on November 15, 2021 (Doc. No. 19.) [16] After considering all the papers filed in support of, and in opposition to the [17] Motion, the Court deems this matter appropriate for resolution without a [18] hearing pursuant to Local Rule 7–15. The Court DENIES the Motion to [19] Remand. [21] I. BACKGROUND [22] Plaintiff Rodas filed this putative class action in Los Angeles Superior [23] Court against Defendant Goodyear, alleging violations of various California [24] Labor Code sections. (See “Compl.,” Doc. No. 1-1.) The Complaint alleges [25] that Defendant failed to pay overtime wages, failed to provide accurate [1] 1 wage statements, and engaged in unlawful business practices. (Compl. ¶¶ 2 30-46.) The Complaint also seeks waiting time penalties, inaccurate wage 3 penalties, and attorneys’ fees for such violations. (Compl. ¶¶ 35-41.). On 4 September 20, 2021, Goodyear timely removed the Complaint to this Court 5 based on jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). (Doc. 6 No. 1.) [7] 8 II. LEGAL STANDARD 9 Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 10 et seq.; Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 11 1979) (“The removal jurisdiction of the federal courts is derived entirely from 12 the statutory authorization of Congress”) (citations omitted). Defendants 13 may remove a case to federal court when a case originally filed in state 14 court presents a federal question or is between citizens of different states. 15 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 (a)-(b), 1446, 1453. Only those state court actions 16 that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed. 28 17 U.S.C. § 1441 (a); Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). [18] 19 Although CAFA gives district courts diversity jurisdiction to hear 20 certain class actions, defendants must show that “any member of a class of 21 plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant” (minimum 22 diversity); the number of members of the proposed plaintiff class exceeds 23 100 in the aggregate (numerosity); and “the matter in controversy exceeds 24 the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs” (amount in 25 controversy). 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d); see also Luther v. Countrywide Home [2] 1 Loans Servicing LP, 533 F.3d 1031, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 2008); Serrano v. 180 2 Connect, Inc., 478 F.3d 1018, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2007). [3] 4 A defendant’s notice of removal need include only a plausible 5 allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional 6 threshold. Evidence establishing the amount is required by § 1446(c)(2)(B) 7 only when the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the defendant’s 8 allegation. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 , 9 88-89 (2014). When the removed complaint fails to allege a specific amount 10 in controversy, or when the complaint alleges an amount in controversy less 11 than the jurisdictional threshold, the removing defendant must prove by a 12 preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy is greater 13 than $5,000,000. Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Servs., No. 13-56149, 2013 14 WL 4516757 , at *6-7 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2013) (citing Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. 15 Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345, 1348 (2013)); Lewis v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., [16] 627 F.3d 395, 400 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). [17] 18 In determining the amount in controversy, the Court considers not 19 only the facts alleged in the complaint, taken as true for purposes of 20 calculating the amount, but also “summary-judgment-type evidence relevant 21 to the amount in controversy.” Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 22 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997). “[T]he amount in controversy is simply an 23 estimate of the total amount in dispute, not a prospective assessment of 24 defendant’s liability.” Lewis, 627 F.3d at 400 . [3] 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 Rodas challenges removal only on the basis Goodyear failed to 3 satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement under CAFA. (Doc. No. 17 at 4 9.) According to Rodas, Goodyear miscalculates the inaccurate wage 5 statements penalties and the attorneys’ fees.1 (Id. at 8-12.) In support of 6 this contention, Rodas cites Harris v. KM Indus., Inc., 980 F.3d 694 (9th Cir. 7 2020), which held that defendant “failed to produce any proof that the 8 members of the Hourly Employee Class and the two subclasses were the 9 same and that they all worked shifts long enough to qualify for meal and rest 10 period, and this failure rendered [defendant’s] assumption unsupported and 11 unreasonable.” (Doc. No. 17 at 11-12.) [12] 13 Rodas’s arguments are unavailing. “CAFA’s requirements are to be 14 tested by consideration of real evidence and the reality of what is at stake in 15 the litigation, using reasonable assumptions underlying the defendant’s 16 theory of damages exposure.” Ibarra v. Manheim Inv., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193 , 17 1198 (9th Cir. 2015). In other words, “a defendant cannot establish removal 18 jurisdiction by mere speculation and conjecture, with unreasonable 19 assumptions.” Id. at 1197 . Reasonable assumptions are reasonable 20 deductions, inferences or extrapolations drawn from specific factual 21 allegations, supportable by evidence (if challenged by the plaintiff or the 22 court). Id. (citation omitted); see also Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160 , 168 23 (2d Cir. 2007) (“An inference is not a suspicion or a guess. It is a reasoned, 24 logical decision to conclude that a disputed fact exists on the basis of [25] 1 Rodas does not challenge Goodyear’s waiting time penalties’ calculation [26] of $1,926,892,80. [4] 1 another fact that is known to exist.”). For example, a declaration from a 2 company employee is “credible evidence to establish CAFA removal” 3 jurisdiction with respect to the amount in controversy where that employee’s 4 testimony cites to “statistics gleaned from defendant’s records, such as the 5 number of class members” and explains “where she obtained her figures 6 and how her estimates and averages were calculated.” Alvarez v. Office 7 Depot, Inc., No. 17-7220, 2017 WL 5952181 , at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2017) 8 (collecting cases). [9] 10 Goodyear here base their calculations on Susan K. Buckley’s 11 declaration, Goodyear’s Payroll Operations Manager, and reports generated 12 in the ordinary course of business. (“Buckley Decl.,” Doc. No. 18-2.); see 13 also Alvarez, 2017 WL 5952181 , at *2. Buckley states that from August 4, 14 2020 to September 2, 2021, the alleged violation period, “there were 15 approximately at least 919 hourly, non-exempt employees employed by 16 [Goodyear] in California who earned overtime” and who worked 17 “approximately 36,137 pay periods” resulting in an average of 39 pay 18 periods per employee. (Buckley Decl. ¶¶ 7-9; Doc. No. 18 at 10.) Buckley 19 then determined the wage statements violation rate of 91.49% based on 20 Rodas’s pay stubs. (Buckley Decl. ¶ 17) (“[Rodas] received 47 pay stubs 21 between August 4, 2020 to August 4, 2021 for work conducted over the 22 course of his employment with Defendant. Of those pay stubs, 43 or 23 91.49% of his ‘view mode’ pay stubs, included the notation ‘Details Not 24 Displayed.’”); cf. Harvey v. Advisors Mortg. Grp., LLC, No. 21-1048, 2021 25 WL 4521065 , at *5 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2021) (“Given Defendant’s failure to 26 introduce any evidence supporting a 95% violation rate, the Court concludes [5] 1 that Defendant has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence 2 that $4,000 is at issue for Plaintiff’s claim for failure to provide accurate 3 wage statements.”). Applying this 91.49% violation rate to the average of 4 39 pay periods per employee yields 35.68 pay periods per employee. (Doc. 5 No. 18 at 11-12). Goodyear correctly asserts that “at a 91.49% violation 6 rate, the resulting average penalties per employee is $3,550 ([$50 * 1] + 7 [$100 * 35]). Multiplying that number by the 919 employees at issue equals 8 $3,262,450.00.” (Id.) Accordingly, the estimates from Goodyear’s payroll 9 manager are sufficient evidence to establish a reasonable amount in 10 controversy. See Andrade v. Beacon Sales Acquisition, Inc., No. 19- 2019 11 WL 4855997 , at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2019) (declaration estimating that 12 defendants “employed approximately 939 non-exempt employees” who 13 worked “50,720 weeks” at an “average hourly rate [of] $17.98” sufficient to 14 demonstrate amount in controversy); Marano v. Liberty Mut. Grp., Inc., No. 15 20-02215, 2021 WL 129930 , at *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2021) (“Although 16 courts have assumed 100% violation rates in other cases involving 17 sweeping allegations, Defendant makes limited and reasonable 18 assumptions for these claims.”) [19] 20 Moreover, Rodas’s reliance on Harris is misplaced. The Harris court 21 found improper the use of the same number of employees to make 22 calculations for all three classes identified in the complaint because 23 defendant provided no evidence that all three classes were the same. 980 24 F.3d at 701-02. Goodyear here, however, bases its calculation on only one 25 subclass of employees—those non-exempt employees who worked 26 overtime and whose pay stubs allegedly violated California law. (Doc. No. [6] | | 10.) Goodyear’s calculation thus is a conservative and reasonable estimate 2 | of the wage statements violation amount. [3] 4 Accordingly, the uncontested waiting time penalties amount of 5 | $1,926,892,80.00, and the inaccurate wage statements penalties of 6 | $3,262,450.00 exceed the $5,000,000 threshold under CAFA.? [7] 8 IV. CONCLUSION 9 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Rodas’s Motion to 10 | Remand. The November 29, 2021, hearing is vacated. [12] 13 | ITIS SO ORDERED. [14] 1) Dated: 11/24/21 Vip A, Pheu ‘ A 16 Virginia A. Phillips United States District Judge [24] 25 ? The Court need not address the attorneys’ fees calculation or overtime 26 claims calculation because the penalties described above satisfy the jurisdictional amount.