Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01842/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01842-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 07cv1842

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOEL M. CRAM, MINH D. NGUYEN, and

ROES 1 through 10, individually, and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 07cv1842-LAB (NLS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

REMAND

vs. [Dkt No. 3]

ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS

CORPORATION, a Delaware

corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,

inclusive,

Defendants.

This matter is before the court on putative class representatives' Motion For Remand

("Motion"). Plaintiffs are two former employees of defendant Electronic Data Systems

Corporation ("EDS") who bring this wage-and-hour case seeking unpaid overtime

compensation, payment of waiting penalties, and damages and injunctive relief for alleged

violations of California law, as well as recovery of their reasonable attorneys' fees. On

September 20, 2007, EDS removed the case to federal court, asserting original federal

jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, codified at 28 U.S.C. §

1332(d) ("CAFA"). The parties agree the size of the putative class under the alternative

definitions plaintiffs recite satisfies CAFA's numerosity element. They also agree CAFA's

"minimal diversity" element is satisfied from the face of the pleading. Their dispute regarding

Case 3:07-cv-01842-LAB-NLS Document 55 Filed 12/19/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 07cv1842

this court's jurisdiction to decide the matter is whether the CAFA "amount in controversy"

requirement is satisfied. Plaintiffs observe they did not specify an amount of damages in

their Complaint. In its removal papers, EDS purports to demonstrate the $5 million threshold

for CAFA jurisdiction is satisfied.

Simultaneously with the September 25, 2007 filing of this Motion, plaintiffs applied ex

parte for leave to conduct pre-hearing discovery to substantiate whether an amount-incontroversy defect divests this court of jurisdiction. In an Order entered October 3, 2007,

Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes authorized the parties to conduct expedited jurisdictional

discovery. Dkt No. 18. She limited the discovery to ten interrogatories per side to address

the narrow question whether the Complaint allegations place in controversy damages in

excess of $5 million. As summarized in Judge Stormes' subsequent Order Denying

Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Interrogatory Answers, plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the

interrogatory responses EDS initially provided. Dkt No. 52. EDS agreed to provide

supplemental responses. Plaintiffs remained dissatisfied with EDS' responses to two of the

ten interrogatories. In denying plaintiffs' request that EDS be compelled to quantify the

potential cost of permanent injunctive relief, in addition to the quantification EDS provided

of likely compensatory damages should plaintiffs prevail, Judge Stormes observed a

valuation of the injunctive relief would be speculative and, in any event, "the threshold

amount in controversy has already been exceeded by the detailed calculations for back

overtime pay and waiting penalties Defendant has provided" in other of the interrogatory

responses. Dkt No. 52, 4:27-5:3. She also denied plaintiffs' request that EDS be ordered

to provide a supplemental response to augment its identification of persons with knowledge

of the factual basis for its position the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million as neither

necessary nor within the narrow scope of the authorized jurisdictional discovery. Dkt No. 52,

5:5-6:12. She concluded EDS had carried its burden to make a factual showing that it is

more likely than not the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, assuming the truth of the

allegations in the Complaint. Dkt No. 52, 5:27-6:2, citing Singer v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.,

/ / /

Case 3:07-cv-01842-LAB-NLS Document 55 Filed 12/19/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 07cv1842

116 F.3d 373, 376 (9th Cir. 1997); Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404

(9th Cir. 1996).

Consistently with Judge Stormes' findings from EDS' demonstration, this court finds

EDS has carried its burden as the removing party on the issue of the CAFA amount in

controversy element. Moreover, EDS' Motion Opposition augments its showing the $5

million threshold is surpassed not only by the computations of back overtime damages and

waiting penalties should plaintiffs prevail, standing alone, but also in consideration of the

potential for an award of attorneys' fees and the potential value of the injunctive relief

component of the litigation objectives. 

Accordingly, as the court finds no Reply to EDS' Opposition to the Motion could

conceivably alter the law of the case ruling by Judge Stormes nor this court's conclusion,

based on its de novo review of EDS' demonstration, the CAFA amount in controversy more

probably than not exceeds the jurisdictional threshold, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs' Motion To Remand is DENIED.

2. Plaintiffs' request for an award of their attorneys' fees incurred as a result of

the purportedly "improvident removal" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) is DENIED.

3. The Motion To Remand hearing presently scheduled for January 7, 2008 is

off-calendar.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 18, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01842-LAB-NLS Document 55 Filed 12/19/07 Page 3 of 3