Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-01540/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-01540-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

Case No.: 5:19-cv-01540-EJD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND

1

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

HASIM A. MOHAMMED,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:19-cv-01540-EJD 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO REMAND

Re: Dkt. No. 16

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Hasim A. Mohammed (“Plaintiff”) initiated this putative class action in state 

court, alleging violations of California Labor Code sections governing meal and rest breaks, 

recordkeeping and timeliness of wage payments, and violation of California’s Unfair Competition 

Law (“UCL”). Compl., Dkt. No. 1-1. Defendant American Airlines, Inc. (“Defendant”) removed 

the action to this Court on the basis of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), as amended by the Class Action 

Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). Notice of Removal, Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff now moves to remand 

the action, asserting that Defendant has failed to establish the requisite amount in controversy. 

The Court finds it appropriate to take the motion under submission for decision without oral 

argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion 

will be granted.

II. BACKGROUND1

On February 19, 2019, Plaintiff initiated this suit in Santa Clara County Superior Court

 

1 The Background is a summary of the allegations in the Complaint.

Case 5:19-cv-01540-EJD Document 22 Filed 11/12/19 Page 1 of 9
Case No.: 5:19-cv-01540-EJD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND

2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

against Defendant and unnamed Doe defendants. Plaintiff resides in California. Compl. ¶ 5. 

Defendant is a Delaware corporation doing business in California. Id. ¶ 6. The “Relevant Time 

Period” is defined as beginning four years prior to the filing of the action until judgment is 

entered. Id. ¶ 11. The Complaint defines an “Hourly Employee Class” of “[a]ll persons employed 

by Defendants and/or any staffing agencies and/or any other third parties in hourly or non-exempt 

positions in California during the Relevant Time Period.” Id. There are also four sub-classes: (1) 

a Meal Period Sub-Class of “[a]ll Hourly Employee Class members who worked in a shift in 

excess of five hours during the Relevant Time Period”; (2) a Rest Period Sub-Class of “[a]ll

Hourly Employee Class members who worked a shift of at least three and one-half (3.5) hours 

during the Relevant Time Period”; (3) a Wage Statement Penalties Sub-Class of “[a]ll Hourly 

Employee Class members employed by Defendants in California during the period beginning one 

year before the filing of this action and ending when final judgment is entered”; and (4) a Waiting 

Time Penalties Sub-Class of “[a]ll Hourly Employee Class members who separated from their 

employment with Defendants during the period beginning three years before the filing of this 

action and ending when final judgment is entered.” Id. There is also a UCL Class defined as “All 

Hourly Employee Class members employed by Defendants in California during the Relevant Time 

Period.” Id.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a non-exempt hourly employee from approximately 

January 17, 2000 through February 28, 2018. Id. ¶ 19. “On many occasions,” Plaintiff and the 

putative class members were not provided meal periods due to (1) Defendant’s policy of not 

scheduling each meal period as part of each work shift; (2) chronically understaffing each work 

shift; (3) imposing so much work that it made it “unlikely” that an employee would be able to take 

breaks; and (4) no formal written meal period policy that encouraged employees to take meal and 

rest periods. Id. ¶ 20. Plaintiff and putative class members were provided meal periods when they 

were not otherwise occupied with job duties; however, they were required to interrupt their meal 

periods and to perform job duties when a plane arrived. Id. ¶ 21. Plaintiff and the putative class 

were neither instructed nor required to clock out for meal periods “as Defendant[] had a policy of 

Case 5:19-cv-01540-EJD Document 22 Filed 11/12/19 Page 2 of 9
Case No.: 5:19-cv-01540-EJD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

automatically deducting one hour from their hours worked.” Id. ¶ 22. In other words, Defendant 

scheduled Plaintiff and the putative class members to work nine hours but deducted an hour for 

purported meal periods in order to avoid having to pay class members overtime. Id. Defendant 

seldom, if ever, provided Plaintiff and the putative class with a one-hour uninterrupted, duty-free 

meal period. Id. “As a result of Defendant[’s] policy, Plaintiff and the putative class were 

regularly not provided with uninterrupted meal periods.” Id. ¶ 23. 

Moreover, Plaintiff and the putative class “were regularly not provided” with rest periods 

of at least ten minutes for each four-hour work period for the same reasons they were not provided 

meal periods. Id. ¶ 26. Plaintiff and the putative class were provided rest periods only to the 

extent they were not occupied with their jobs. Id. ¶ 25. Plaintiff and the putative class worked 

through their rest periods in order to complete their assignments on time. Id. ¶ 26.

Plaintiff and the putative class were not provided with accurate wage statements as 

mandated by California Labor Code section 226. Id. ¶ 27. The statements that were provided 

were inaccurate because they failed to include overtime, as well as meal and/or rest period 

premiums. Id. ¶¶ 28-29.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff asserts six causes of action: (1) failure to provide meal 

periods (Labor Code §§ 204, 223, 226.7, 512 and 1198); (2) failure to provide rest periods (Labor 

Code §§ 204, 223, 226.7 and 1198); (3) failure to pay hourly and overtime wages (Labor Code §§ 

223, 510, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1 and 1198); (4) failure to provide accurate written wage 

statements (Labor Code §226(a)); (5) failure to pay timely final wages (Labor Code §§ 201, 202 

and 203); and (6) violation of the UCL by engaging in unlawful business practices. 

III. STANDARDS

Defendants may remove a case to a federal court when a case originally filed in state court 

presents a federal question or is between citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a)-(b), 

1446, 1453. Only state court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be 

removed. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). CAFA 

gives district courts original jurisdiction to hear class actions: (i) involving a plaintiff class of 100 

Case 5:19-cv-01540-EJD Document 22 Filed 11/12/19 Page 3 of 9
Case No.: 5:19-cv-01540-EJD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND

4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

or more members, (ii) where at least one member of the plaintiff class is a citizen of a State 

different from any defendant, and (iii) in which the matter in controversy exceeds (in the 

aggregate) the sum or value of $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). 

When measuring the matter in controversy, “the claims of the individual class members shall be 

aggregated.” Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 568 U.S. 588, 592 (2013) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(d)(6)) . “[T]hose ‘class members’ include ‘persons (named or unnamed) who fall within the 

definition of the proposed or certified class.’” Id. (quoting § 1332(d)(1)(D) (emphasis added)). 

A class action that meets the CAFA standards may be removed to federal court. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1441(a). “Unlike the general presumption against removal, ‘no antiremoval presumption attends 

cases invoking CAFA.’” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89

(2014). “A defendant seeking removal has the burden to establish that removal is proper and any 

doubt is resolved against removability.” Luther v. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, 533 

F.3d 1031, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 2008); Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th 

Cir. 2006) (“We therefore hold that under CAFA the burden of establishing removal jurisdiction 

remains, as before, on the proponent of federal jurisdiction.”).

“[W]hen a defendant seeks federal-court adjudication, the defendant’s amount-incontroversy allegation should be accepted when not contested by the plaintiff or questioned by the 

court.” Dart, 574 U.S. at 87. “[A] defendant’s notice of removal need include only a plausible 

allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Id. at 89. If the 

plaintiff contests the defendant’s allegation, evidence establishing the amount in controversy is 

required. Ibarra v. Manheim Invests., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015). “In such a case, 

both sides submit proof and the court decides, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the 

amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied.” Id. at 1197 (quoting Dart, 574 U.S. at 88

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B))); see also Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, 728 F.3d 

975, 981 (9th Cir. 2013) (“A defendant seeking removal of a putative class action must 

demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, that the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds 

the jurisdictional minimum.”). Under the preponderance of the evidence standard, a removing 

Case 5:19-cv-01540-EJD Document 22 Filed 11/12/19 Page 4 of 9
Case No.: 5:19-cv-01540-EJD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND

5

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

defendant must show “that the potential damages could exceed the jurisdictional amount.” Rea v. 

Michaels Stores Inc., 742 F.3d 1234, 1239 (9th Cir. 204) (quoting Lewis v. Verizon Commc’ns, 

Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 397 (9th Cir. 2010)).

The parties may submit evidence such as affidavits, declarations, or other “summaryjudgment type evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time of removal.” Id. 

(quoting Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997)). The 

defendant, however, need not prove to a “legal certainty” that the amount in controversy 

requirement has been met. Dart, 574 U.S. at 88-89 (citing H.R. Rep. No. 112-10, p. 16 (2011)).

The preponderance standard requires only that a removing defendant prove that it is “more likely 

than not” that the amount in controversy requirement is met. Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 

506 F.3d 696, 698 (9th Cir. 2007). “Under this system, CAFA’s requirements are to be tested by 

consideration of real evidence and the reality of what is at stake in the litigation, using reasonable 

assumptions underlying the defendant’s theory of damages exposure.” Ibarra, 775 F.3d at 1198.

IV. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff contends that removal was improper because Defendant has failed to meet its 

burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that there is more than $5 million in 

controversy.2 In the alternative, Plaintiff requests leave to conduct discovery regarding 

Defendant’s proffered evidence as to the amount in controversy.

Defendant’s Notice of Removal was filed on the basis of information provided by Lisa 

Magdaleno (“Magdaleno”), who is employed by Defendant “in the capacity of Paralegal/LegalEmployment.” Dkt. No. 1-3. Magdaleno reviewed the collective bargaining agreements 

applicable to Defendant’s various employee groups as well as records showing the number of 

employees in each group. Decl. of Magdaleno In Support of Notice of Removal ¶ 1. Based upon 

the information provided by Magdaleno, Defendant calculated the amount in controversy as 

follows.

 

2 Plaintiff does not contest that there are at least 100 purported class members or that there is 

diversity of citizenship.

Case 5:19-cv-01540-EJD Document 22 Filed 11/12/19 Page 5 of 9
Case No.: 5:19-cv-01540-EJD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND

6

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

a. Plaintiff’s First and Second Causes of Action allege that 

American maintained a policy or practice of denying Plaintiff 

and the putative class members off-duty meal and rest periods or 

premium compensation in lieu thereof, Compl. ¶¶ 38-41; 52-53, 

and therefore he and the putative class members are entitled to 

missed meal and rest period premiums pursuant to Labor Code § 

226.7 going back four years to February 19, 2015.

b. There are approximately 1,379 individuals currently working for

American as ramp agents in California. (Magdaleno Decl. ¶ 2.)

According to the applicable collective bargaining agreement, the 

current lowest hourly rate for ramp agents is $14.18 per hour. 

(Id. ¶ 3.) Labor Code § 226.7 provides that if an employer fails to 

provide a meal or rest period in accordance with the law, “the 

employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the 

employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that 

the meal or rest or recovery period is not provided.” Cal. Lab. 

Code § 226.7(c).

c. Reducing the number of putative class members by approximately 

30% (965) to account for attrition, and assuming each class 

member was paid at $14.18 per hour and missed one meal and 

one rest break each week for the 4 years (or 208 weeks) at issue 

in this action, the amount in controversy for Plaintiff’s First and 

Second Causes of Action is approximately:

i. (14.18 x 208 weeks x 965) + (14.18 x 208 weeks x 965) =

$5,692,419.20.

Def.’s Notice of Removal ¶ 13 (Dkt. No. 1); Magdaleno Decl. ¶¶1-3.

3

 Defendant contends that 

Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees further increases the alleged amount in controversy beyond 

$5 million. Id. ¶ 15.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s calculations above fail to satisfy the preponderance of 

the evidence standard because they are based upon “unsupported assumptions asserting certain 

unsubstantiated rates of rest period violations during the [R]elevant [T]ime [P]eriod, without 

regard to whether certain employees experienced rest period violations or not.” Pl.’s Mot. To 

Remand 5 (Dkt. No. 16). Plaintiff intimates that Defendant should have presented precise 

information because it is readily available in Defendant’s payroll and employment records. Id. 

 

3 Although the Complaint alleges additional labor law violations, Defendant calculated potential 

damages only for the first and second causes of action and contends that the amount in controversy 

for these two claims exceeds $5 million.

Case 5:19-cv-01540-EJD Document 22 Filed 11/12/19 Page 6 of 9
Case No.: 5:19-cv-01540-EJD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND

7

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Moreover, Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s calculations are inaccurate because they are based 

on the mistaken assumption that Plaintiff is alleging that each class employee missed a meal and 

break each week for four years, when in reality Plaintiff seeks to represent those employees that 

were not given a meal or rest break or paid premiums in lieu thereof. Id. 3. Further, Plaintiff 

contends that because Defendant’s damages calculations are inaccurate, Defendant’s 

corresponding attorneys’ fees calculations are also inaccurate. 

The Court finds that Defendant has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the 

evidence that the amount in controversy requirement for CAFA jurisdiction has been met in this 

case. Defendant’s calculations are based upon the number of ramp agents currently employed in 

California. It is unclear, however, whether the number of ramp agents currently employed is 

below, above, or equal to the number of employees encompassed in the proposed “Hourly 

Employee Class,” defined as “[a]ll persons employed by Defendants and/or any staffing agencies 

and/or any other third parties in hourly or non-exempt positions in California during the Relevant 

Time Period.” Defendant contends that the number of ramp agents is under inclusive but does not 

offer any evidence to support its contention. Nor has Defendant explained the relationship, if any, 

between the number of ramp agents currently employed and the number of potential members in 

any of the subclasses. For example, Defendant has not presented any evidence of how many nonexempt employees actually worked shifts in excess of five hours such that they would be entitled 

to a meal period. Defendant has also failed to present evidence of how many non-exempt 

employees worked shifts in excess of 3.5 hours such that they would be entitled to a rest break. In 

response, Defendant asserts in its opposition brief that it calculated the amount in controversy “for 

only a fraction of the employees Plaintiff seeks to represent” (Def.’s Opp’n To Pl.’s Motion To 

Remand 1); however, there is no evidence in the record to substantiate Defendant’s assertion.

The absence of proof regarding the actual number of employees encompassed in Plaintiff’s 

proposed Hourly Employee Class and subclasses distinguishes this case from Crummie v. 

CertifiedSafety, Inc., No. 17-3892 RS, 2017 WL 4544747, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2017) upon 

which Defendant relies. In Crummie, the plaintiff asserted various wage and hour violations on 

Case 5:19-cv-01540-EJD Document 22 Filed 11/12/19 Page 7 of 9
Case No.: 5:19-cv-01540-EJD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND

8

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

behalf of non-exempt employees. The defendant’s vice president of human resources stated, and 

the plaintiff did not challenge, that the number of employees encompassed by the proposed class 

definition was 802. Id. The defendant also set out the hourly wage range for putative class 

members and the cumulative total of workweeks. Id. Further, the defendant used the employees’ 

actual pay rates to calculate the amount in controversy. 

Defendant’s amount-in-controversy calculation is also flawed because Defendant uses the 

lowest base hourly wage for a ramp agent under the current collective bargaining agreement 

($14.18 per hour) instead of the hourly wage for class members during the Relevant Time Period. 

There is no evidentiary basis upon which to assume $14.18 per hour is a reasonable estimate of 

what putative class members were paid throughout the Relevant Time Period, which extends back 

four years to February of 2015. 

Relying on Dart, Defendant next argues that Plaintiff must submit proof to rebut 

Defendant’s assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. 

Plaintiff counters that it is under no obligation to submit evidence as to the amount in controversy. 

The Court agrees with Plaintiff. Although the Supreme Court in Dart instructed that once 

jurisdiction has been challenged, “both sides submit proof and the court decides” (Dart, 574 U.S. 

at 88), this is not such a case because Defendant’s evidence fails to support a plausible allegation 

that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. As discussed above, 

Defendant’s calculation is not based upon the actual number of employees encompassed in 

Plaintiff’s proposed class and subclasses. Nor is Defendant’s calculation based on a reasonable 

estimate of the number of employees encompassed in Plaintiff’s proposed class and subclasses. 

Further, Defendant’s calculations and not based upon the actual or reasonable estimate of 

employees’ hourly wages during the Relevant Time Period. “CAFA’s requirements are to be 

tested by consideration of real evidence and the reality of what is at stake in the litigation, using 

reasonable assumptions underlying the defendant’s theory of damages exposure.” Ibarra, 775 

F.3d at 1198. Defendant’s calculation is not adequately supported by real evidence or reasonable 

assumptions based upon that evidence.

Case 5:19-cv-01540-EJD Document 22 Filed 11/12/19 Page 8 of 9
Case No.: 5:19-cv-01540-EJD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND

9

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Lastly, Defendant invites the court to consider Plaintiff’s additional causes of action, 

which Defendant contends further increases the amount in controversy above the jurisdictional 

minimum. More specifically, by Defendant’s calculation, a twenty percent (20%) violation rate 

for just the third cause of action for failure to pay hourly and overtime wages raises the amount in 

controversy by approximately $4,894,836.96. Def.’s Opp’n To Pl.’s Motion To Remand 13. The 

Court declines to consider this new calculation because it was not included in Defendant’s Notice 

of Removal and the time to amend has expired. O’Halloran v. Univ. of Washington, 856F.2d 

1375, 1381 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Barrow Dev. Co. v. Fulton Ins Co., 418 F.2d 316, 317 (9th Cir. 

1969)). 

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion to remand is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 12, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:19-cv-01540-EJD Document 22 Filed 11/12/19 Page 9 of 9