Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01947/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01947-1/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARLEY CASTRO, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ABM INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01947-YGR 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO 

REMAND

Re: Dkt. No. 31

This putative class action was previously removed to this Court from the Superior Court of 

the State of California, County of Alameda, on December 5, 2014. Castro v. ABM Industries Inc., 

et al., Case No. 14-CV-05359-YGR, at Dkt. No. 1. Thereafter, plaintiffs successfully moved for 

remand. Castro v. ABM Indus. Inc., No. 14-CV-05359-YGR, 2015 WL 1520666, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 

Apr. 2, 2015). After summarizing the relevant portions of the complaint and notice of removal 

and recounting the applicable legal standard, the Court found that defendants had failed to 

establish that the aggregate amount in controversy exceeded $5 million under the Class Action 

Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). Id. at *4-5. The Court rejected 

defendants’ argument that penalties available under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 

(“PAGA”), California Labor Code sections 2698 et seq., should be considered in determining the 

amount in controversy, as the PAGA claims were not added until plaintiffs filed a First Amended 

Complaint post-removal. Id. at *3 n.4 (noting that “[f]or purposes of evaluating whether removal 

was proper, the Court looks to the operative complaint at the time the action was removed”).

Defendants appealed the remand order and filed a new notice of removal in light of the 

First Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 1.) Because a new notice of removal had been filed, the 

Ninth Circuit denied the appeal as moot. See Castro v. ABM Indus. Inc., 616 F. App’x 353 (9th 

Cir. 2015). Also after the operative notice of removal was filed, the Ninth Circuit held in a 

different case that PAGA penalties asserted as non-class claims cannot be added to amounts 

recoverable as class claims to reach the $5 million amount-in-controversy threshold in CAFA 

cases. See Yocupicio v. PAE Grp., LLC, 795 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Where a plaintiff 

Case 4:15-cv-01947-YGR Document 43 Filed 11/10/15 Page 1 of 2
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

files an action containing class claims as well as non-class claims, and the class claims do not 

meet the CAFA amount-in-controversy requirement while the non-class claims, standing alone, do 

not meet diversity of citizenship jurisdiction requirements, the amount involved in the non-class 

claims cannot be used to satisfy the CAFA jurisdictional amount, and the CAFA diversity 

provisions cannot be invoked to give the district court jurisdiction over the non-class claims.”). 

As in Yocupicio, and contrary to defendants’ argument (Dkt. No. 32 at 2-3), plaintiffs in the First 

Amended Complaint specifically disclaim seeking class action status for the PAGA claims (Dkt. 

No. 3-1 ¶ 24). See Yocupicio, 795 F.3d at 1060 n.7 (noting a similar election was “‘fatal to CAFA 

jurisdiction’”).

Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand in light of Yocupicio. (Dkt. No. 31.)1In opposition 

thereto, defendants do not directly claim Yocupicio is inapplicable, but rather argue that case “was 

wrongly decided” and note their intention to “petition for rehearing en banc in the Ninth Circuit 

and/or [file] a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging Yocupicio’s 

holding.” (Dkt. No. 32 at 1-2, 9 (“It is likely that ABM will convince the Supreme Court or the en 

banc Ninth Circuit to overrule Yocupicio because it is clearly wrong for a number of reasons.”).) 

The Court finds Yocupicio is directly applicable here and binding authority. As such, and having 

carefully considered the papers submitted, the motion to remand is GRANTED. This action is 

hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda.

This Order terminates Docket Numbers 31 and 422and the Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2015

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

 

1

The Court VACATES the hearing set for November 17, 2015, finding the motion suitable 

for decision without oral argument as permitted by Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 78. See also Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pacific Malibu Dev. 

Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991).

2

The stipulation to continue the case management conference (Dkt. No. 42.) is DENIED as 

moot.

Case 4:15-cv-01947-YGR Document 43 Filed 11/10/15 Page 2 of 2