Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00763/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00763-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHAD RHOADES and LUIS URBINA, )

)

Plaintiffs, ) 2:10-cv-00763-GEB-KJM

)

v. ) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

) REMAND

PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE CO.,)

INC., )

)

Defendant. )

)

Plaintiffs move to remand this case to Sacramento County

Superior Court from which Defendant removed it. This case was removed

under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). CAFA “vests

district courts with ‘original jurisdiction of any civil action in

which, inter alia, the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value

of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs,’ and in which the

aggregate number of proposed plaintiffs is 100 or greater, and any

member of the plaintiff class is a citizen of a state different from

any defendant.” Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994,

997 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)).

Plaintiffs argue Defendant has not satisfied its burden of

showing that the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $5,000,000. 

Defendant “bears the burden of establishing . . . jurisdiction” under

Case 2:10-cv-00763-GEB-AC Document 23 Filed 06/10/10 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

CAFA. Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 686 (9th Cir.

2006).

Plaintiffs allege in their “class action complaint” that the

members of the putative class were “employed in the State of

California by the Defendant[] to adjust insurance claims and their

positions were known as ‘Claims Adjuster,’ ‘Claims Generalist

Associate,’ or similar titles” “during the past four (4) years.” 

(Compl. ¶ 6.) 

After removal, Plaintiffs filed their first amended

complaint in which they include the allegation: “Plaintiff is further

informed and believes, and based thereupon alleges, that because the

individual members of the classes herein have sustained damages under

the seventy-five thousand dollar ($75,000.00) jurisdictional threshold

and that the aggregate claim is under the five million dollar

($5,000,000.00) threshold, removal under the CAFA would

be improper.” (First Amended Complaint ¶ 5.) Plaintiffs argue in

their remand motion that their first amended complaint should be

considered when determining whether the amount in controversy is

satisfied. However, Plaintiffs’ “amended complaint . . . may not be

considered . . . in determining whether the suit was removable.” 

Thiel v. Southern Pac. Co., 126 F.2d 710, 712 (9th Cir. 1942). 

Rather, “whether [this] suit was removable . . . must ‘be determined

according to [Plaintiffs’] pleading at the time of the petition for

removal.’” Id. (quoting Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 305 U.S. 534, 537

(1939) (emphasis added)). 

Plaintiffs’ original complaint does not specify the amount

of damages sought. “Where the complaint does not specify the amount

of damages sought, the removing defendant must prove by a

Case 2:10-cv-00763-GEB-AC Document 23 Filed 06/10/10 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

preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy

requirement has been met.” Abrego Abrego, 443 F.3d at 683. “Under

this burden, the defendant must provide evidence that it is ‘more

likely than not’ that the amount in controversy” satisfies the

jurisdictional amount requirement. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins.

Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Guglielmino v. McKee

Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007) (“We have since applied

the preponderance holding in Sanchez to complaints filed under . . .

[CAFA] that do not specify a particular amount in controversy.”).

Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ remand motion cites to

information in Plaintiffs’ original complaint about Plaintiffs’ claims

and concludes the information shows Plaintiffs seek $2,215,476.00 for

waiting time claims, $1,388,551.50 for inaccurate wage statements, and

$707,889.00 for penalties, totaling $4,311,916.50. (Opp’n 10:10-

11:3). Defendant also seeks to enlarge this amount by using the

allegation in Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint that each class

member averaged two to five hours of overtime per week. However,

Plaintiffs’ amended complaint may not be considered in determining

whether the case was removable. Since defendant has no other evidence

satisfying the jurisdictional amount requirement, Plaintiffs’ remand

motion is granted. Therefore, this case is remanded to Sacramento

County Superior Court from which it was removed. 

Dated: June 9, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:10-cv-00763-GEB-AC Document 23 Filed 06/10/10 Page 3 of 3