Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00174/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00174-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-00174-EMC 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO REMAND

Docket No. 17

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff William Brown filed the instant action in state court against Chipotle Mexican 

Grill, alleging, inter alia, that Chipotle harassed Plaintiff “through severe and pervasive slurs” and 

terminated Plaintiff after Plaintiff opposed and complained about the “alleged 

discrimination/retaliation/harassment and illegal conduct.” Docket No. 1-1, Compl. ¶¶ 12, 14. 

Plaintiff asserted fourteen causes of action. Compl. at 6-14. Chipotle subsequently removed the 

case to federal court. Docket No. 1 (Not. of Removal). Currently pending before the Court is 

Plaintiff‟s Motion to Remand the case to the Superior Court of Alameda County. Docket No. 17 

(“MTR”). 

II. BACKGROUND

This action arises out of Plaintiff‟s termination from Chipotle. Compl. ¶ 16. Plaintiff 

alleges that Defendant failed to allow him 10 minute rest breaks every four hours and 30 minute 

meal periods every five hours. Id. ¶ 9. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants‟ employees harassed 

Plaintiff through severe and pervasive slurs, propositions, and insults. Id. ¶ 12. After Plaintiff 

complained, Defendant subjected Plaintiff to a series of adverse employment actions and 

terminated Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 16. 

Case 3:16-cv-00174-EMC Document 29 Filed 06/21/16 Page 1 of 8
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

For the Northern District of California

Plaintiff filed this action in the California Superior Court of Alameda County on 

November 5, 2015, alleging claims under the California Labor Code and California Fair 

Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Chipotle was served with the Complaint on December 

11, 2015, and removed the action on January 11, 2016 on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Not. 

of Removal at ¶ 8. 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Jurisdiction in this case is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or diversity jurisdiction. In order 

for this Court to have jurisdiction, there must be complete diversity between the parties – which 

the parties do not dispute exists in the instant case – and the amount in controversy must exceed 

$75,000. “The party invoking the removal statute bears the burden of establishing federal 

jurisdiction. Furthermore, the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” 

Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988). “Federal jurisdiction must 

be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 

Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that 

more than $75,000 is in controversy, the removing party must prove, by a preponderance of the 

evidence, that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold.” Matheson v. 

Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). In order to satisfy its burden, 

a defendant must “provide evidence establishing that it is „more likely than not‟ that the amount in 

controversy exceeds that amount.” Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 

2004) (quoting Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996)) 

(emphasis added). Further, a speculative argument as to the amount in controversy is insufficient 

to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement. Gaus, 980 F.2d at 567; see also Matheson, 319 F.3d at 

1090-91 (“Conclusory allegations as to the amount in controversy are insufficient.”). 

B. The Court is Remanding the Case Because Chipotle Has Not Satisfied Its Burden of Proof

The parties dispute whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear this case based on diversity 

jurisdiction as the parties dispute whether the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional 

minimum of $75,000. Plaintiff asserts fourteen causes of action against Chipotle: (1) failure to 

Case 3:16-cv-00174-EMC Document 29 Filed 06/21/16 Page 2 of 8
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

For the Northern District of California

pay timely earned wages upon termination from employment; (2) failure to furnish accurate 

payroll records; (3) unfair competition; (4) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (5) 

violation of labor code s. 1102.5; (6) violation of labor code s. 6310; (7) discrimination in 

violation of fair employment and housing act (“FEHA”); (8) failure to prevent discrimination in 

violation of FEHA; (9) harassment in violation of FEHA; (10) failure to prevent harassment in 

violation of FEHA; (11) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (12) violation of the California Family 

Rights Act (“CFRA”); (13) failure to engage in the interactive process and provide reasonable 

accommodation; (14) failure to comply with meal/rest period requirements. Compl. at 6-14. 

Plaintiff seeks payment of all statutory obligations and penalties as required by law; for 

penalties, special damages, compensatory, and general damages in an amount to be proven at trial; 

for reasonable attorneys‟ fees; for loss of income incurred; and other relief. Compl. at 13-14. 

Plaintiff contends Chipotle has not satisfied its burden in showing that Plaintiff‟s claim 

exceeds $75,000 because Chipotle has not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the 

controversy exceeds the diversity jurisdiction threshold of $75,000. MTR at 4. In response, 

Chipotle argues that Plaintiff‟s claim for punitive damages and emotional distress will satisfy the 

jurisdictional minimum of $75,000. MTR at 4-5. 

In the instant case, the Court finds that Chipotle has failed to satisfy its burden that the 

amount in controversy has been met. First, Chipotle‟s estimate that the lost wages would amount 

to over $38,000 is speculative. In the Notice of Removal, Chipotle estimates that based on 

Plaintiff‟s base salary of $9.25 per hour, Plaintiff‟s damages for lost wages from November 7, 

2014 (when Plaintiff was terminated) through the date of removal would be in excess of $20,000. 

NOR at ¶ 32. Further, if the case was to be resolved at trial by January 2017, “Plaintiff‟s 

unmitigated lost wages could amount to over $38,000.” Id. This calculation appears to assume 

that Plaintiff worked 40 hours per week every week; however, Chipotle does not produce any 

evidence that Plaintiff did have such a work schedule when employed by Chipotle. Compare with

Archibold v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., Case No. CV 15-1776 FMO (JPRx), 2015 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 68578, at *5-6 (C.D. Cal. May 27, 2015) (rejecting the defendant‟s calculation of damages 

where the defendant used the plaintiff‟s hourly rate of $21.64 to calculate $82,000 in lost wages, 

Case 3:16-cv-00174-EMC Document 29 Filed 06/21/16 Page 3 of 8
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

For the Northern District of California

but did not provide any evidence as to the basis for its calculations, including “the number of 

hours defendant used to reach its total, the number of hours a week plaintiff worked when she 

worked for defendant, and whether she worked the same hours every week”). In short, Chipotle 

has failed to substantiate its estimate that the unmitigated lost earnings would amount to $38,000.

Second, Chipotle provides no estimate of what Plaintiff‟s attorney‟s fees will be. At most, 

Chipotle points to an e-mail from Plaintiff‟s counsel that attorney‟s fees through removal “should 

not exceed $15,000.” See Docket No. 24-1 (De Warmes Dec.), Exh. C. This e-mail only states an 

upper maximum of attorney‟s fees spent through removal; it does not state that $15,000 is the 

amount spent. But even if Plaintiff‟s attorney‟s fees amounted to $15,000 through removal, 

Chipotle provides no estimate or evidence of what attorney‟s fees will be following removal. 

Thus, at this point the Court can only assume $15,000 as the amount in controversy.1

Third, Chipotle has failed to provide any reliable measure of emotional distress or punitive 

damages. As a general matter, “[i]t is well established that punitive damages are part of the 

amount in controversy in a civil action.” Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 945 (9th Cir.

2001). “However, the mere possibility of a punitive damages award is insufficient to prove that 

the amount in controversy requirement has been met.” J. Marymount Inc. v. Bayer Healthcare, 

LLC, No. C 09-03110 JSW, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118882, at *11 (N.D. Cal. 2009). Thus, 

 

1

This Court has recognized that “[t]here is a split in authority regarding when to measure the 

attorney‟s fees for purposes of determining the amount in controversy. Some courts include only 

the fees incurred as of the date of the complaint, some include the fees as of the date of removal, 

and others include a reasonable estimate of fees likely to be recovered through resolution of the 

matter.” Renazco v. Unisys Tech. Servs., LLC, No. C-14-4204 EMC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

168922, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2014); see also Dukes v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., No. CV-09-

2197-PHK,NVW, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3617, at *5-6 (D. Ariz. Jan. 6, 2010) (noting that “there 

is disagreement within this circuit as to whether attorney‟s fees incurred after the date of removal 

are properly included in the amount in controversy, and concluding that “the better view is that 

attorneys‟ fees incurred after the date of removal are not properly included because the amount in 

controversy is to be determined as of the date of removal[, and that f]uture attorneys‟ fees are 

entirely speculative, may be avoided, and are therefore not „in controversy‟ at the time of 

removal”); Brady v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 2d 1004, 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2002) 

(considering the reasonable estimate of fees likely to be recovered to calculate the amount iin 

controversy because “[t]he amount of fees commonly incurred in similar litigation can usually be 

reasonably estimated based on experience”). 

The Court does not need to resolve this issue because Chipotle provides no estimate of 

what attorney‟s fees will be following remand, focusing solely on the $15,000 estimated by 

Plaintiff‟s counsel. See Docket No. 24 at 5-6 (“Opp‟n”).

Case 3:16-cv-00174-EMC Document 29 Filed 06/21/16 Page 4 of 8
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

For the Northern District of California

“when determining the amount in controversy, „a claim for punitive damages is to be given closer 

scrutiny, and the trial judge accorded greater discretion, than a claim for actual damage.‟ ” BellSparrow v. Wiltz, No. C 12-02782 SI, 2014 WL 2927354, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2014) (quoting 

Larkin v. Brown, 41 F.3d 387, 389 (8th Cir. 1994)); see also Conrad Associates v. Hartford Acc. 

& Indem. Co., 994 F. Supp. 1196, 1201 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (“Defendant‟s burden cannot be met 

simply by pointing out that the complaint seeks punitive damages and that any damages awarded 

under such a claim could total a large sum of money, particularly in light of the high burden that 

must be met in order for a plaintiff even to be eligible for receipt of discretionary punitive 

damages.”).

Here, Chipotle has not satisfied its burden of proof to establish that the punitive damages 

would raise Plaintiff‟s claim to above the jurisdictional amount of $75,000. 

Chipotle argues that “specific jury verdicts in employment cases in California indicate that 

verdict awards well in excess of the jurisdictional requisite have been awarded to plaintiffs 

(including short-term employees with minimal or no economic damages) in cases alleging 

harassment, discrimination, and wrongful termination.” NR at ¶ 38. However, “[w]hile 

settlements and jury verdicts in similar cases can provide evidence of the amount in controversy, 

the cases must be factually identical or, at a minimum, analogous to the case at issue.” Mireles v. 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 845 F. Supp. 2d 1034, 1055 (C.D. Cal. 2012).

For example, in Rindels v. Tyco Integrated Security, LLC, the district court rejected the 

defendants‟ reliance on “a host of litigation decisions, including employment decisions, that 

resulted in high damage amounts and high attorney fees.” No. CV 14-6536 RSWL (CWx), 2015 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13409, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2015). The district court explained that the 

defendants “d[id] not, however, do sufficient work to draw parallels between the instant case and 

those decisions, nor is there any specific allegation of these damages.” Id. Furthermore:

as Plaintiff correctly notes, all cited cases went through trial and 

resulted in noteworthy verdicts. If Defendants‟ argument is that 

large judgments are possible, they are correct. Defendants‟ burden 

of proof, however, requires that they establish that it is more likely 

than not that damages will satisfy the amount-in-controversy. In 

citing to other employment cases, Defendants make arguments such 

Case 3:16-cv-00174-EMC Document 29 Filed 06/21/16 Page 5 of 8
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

For the Northern District of California

as “the „realities of modern law practice‟ indicate the reality of the 

huge potential exposure,” Opp‟n 8:23-24 (quoting Miera v. 

Dairyland Ins. Co., 143 F.3d 1337, 1340 (10th Cir. 1998), and 

“[a]ttorney‟s fees are a reality in employment litigation cases,” 

Opp‟n 8:26. These generalities simply do not provide the Court 

with sufficient evidence, paired with analysis of analogous case law, 

to find it more likely than not that in this instance, attorneys fees 

will be so substantial as to carry the amount in controversy over the 

threshold.

Id. at *9-10.

In the instant case, Chipotle cites cases where “[d]amages allegations similar to those being 

made by Plaintiff in this action have been held insufficient to satisfy the amount in controversy 

requirement.” NR at ¶ 37. However, Chipotle fails to analogize the cases cited in the notice of

removal to the instant matter. Instead, Chipotle simply lists eight verdicts in employment cases

which included substantial emotional distress and punitive damages awards. See NR at ¶ 38. 

Chipotle provides no information about the specific facts of the case beyond the general claims at 

issue. Id. at ¶¶ 38(a) (sexual harassment and retaliation case); 38(b) (sexual battery and intentional 

infliction of emotional distress case); 38(c) (sexual assault and sexual harassment case); 38(d) 

sexual harassment case); 38(e) (retaliation and wrongful termination); 38(f) (sexual harassment, 

retaliation, and constructive discharge case); 38(g) (discrimination and wrongful termination 

case); 38(h) (retaliation and wrongful termination case). Perhaps because of this lack of facts, 

Chipotle fails to draw any comparisons between the facts of the instant case and those listed, or 

explain why the verdicts in those case are likely to inform the verdict here. Compare with Killion 

v. AutoZone Stores Inc., 2011 WL 590292, *2 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (“Defendants cite two cases . . . in 

which punitive damages were awarded, but make no attempt to analogize or explain how these 

cases are similar to the instant action . . . Simply citing these cases merely illustrate[s] that 

punitive damages are possible, but in no way shows that it is likely or probable in this case. 

Therefore, Defendants‟ inclusion of punitive damages in the calculation of the jurisdictional 

amount is speculative and unsupported.”); Richwood v. Brinker Int’l Payroll Co., L.P., 16-cv1683-SVW-JEM, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56271, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2016) (remanding case 

where the defendants estimated compensatory damages in the amount of $37,121.85, but “fail[ed] 

to establish any reliable measure of emotional distress damages or punitive damages” because the 

Case 3:16-cv-00174-EMC Document 29 Filed 06/21/16 Page 6 of 8
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

For the Northern District of California

“[d]efendant merely attaches a handful of jury verdicts in other race discrimination cases dated as 

far back as 1998 without any attempt to analogize those cases to the present case”).

Chipotle failed to analogize because the Complaint contains bare bones conclusory 

allegations (and its chart was bare bones). Plaintiff only alleges that Defendants harassed, 

discriminated, and retaliated against him by failing to provide him breaks, reasonable 

accommodation, leave to care for his child and father, harassing him through severe and pervasive 

slurs, demoting him, subjecting him to discipline, and terminating him. (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 11, 12, 13, 

16). Moreover, as to his emotional distress, Plaintiff only alleges that “Defendants acted with 

oppression, malice, and/or conscious disregard of Plaintiff‟s rights . . . .” Compl. ¶ 31. There is 

no evidence as to why any emotional distress damages from other cases (the majority of which 

involved sexual harassment or assault) are apt comparisons to the instant case.

Defendant‟s reliance on Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 

547 (2014) to establish the jurisdictional amount is misplaced. Defendant incorrectly contends 

that after Dart Cherokee, a defendant need only plausible allegations related to the amount in 

controversy. Docket No. 24 at 5 (“Opp‟n”). As the Supreme Court made clear, “when the 

plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the defendant‟s allegation” regarding the amount in 

controversy, “[e]vidence establishing the amount is required” and the removing party must 

establish that the jurisdictional amount is met by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 554. 

Thus, contrary to Defendant‟s contention, the Supreme Court did not undermine existing Ninth 

Circuit precedent regarding either the presumption against removal or the removing party‟s burden 

to demonstrate the removal is proper. 

As the removal statute is construed against removal, removal must be rejected if there is 

any doubt as to removal requirements being satisfied. The Court holds that Defendant has not met 

its burden in proving it is more likely than not that the jurisdictional minimum has been satisfied. 

It therefore remands the case.

///

///

///

Case 3:16-cv-00174-EMC Document 29 Filed 06/21/16 Page 7 of 8
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

For the Northern District of California

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to meet its burden to 

show that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 

Plaintiff‟s motion to remand. 

This order disposes of Docket No. 17.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00174-EMC Document 29 Filed 06/21/16 Page 8 of 8