Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-01540/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-01540-1/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 DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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 DENYING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 24

Presently before the Court is Defendant’s motion for leave to file a motion for 

reconsideration of the Court’s November 12, 2019 Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion To Remand. 

Defendant contends that reconsideration is warranted in light of the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision 

in Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott, 936 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2019). The Arias decision is not a 

proper basis for reconsideration because it was issued on September 3, 2019, and therefore does 

not constitute a “change of law occurring after the time of [the Court’s order].” L.R. 7-9(b)(2). 

Defendant should have brought Arias to the Court’s attention by filing a Statement of Recent 

Decision. See Local Rule 7-3(d)(2). 

Moreover, contrary to Defendant’s assertion, the Court’s Order does not “directly conflict” 

with Arias. Defendant argues that Arias holds that a removing defendant in a wage-and-hour case 

may rely on reasonable assumptions regarding violation rates to prove the amount in controversy. 

The Court agrees that a removing defendant may rely on reasonable assumptions. Defendant’s 

assumptions, however, “cannot be pulled from thin air but need some reasonable ground 

underlying them.” Arias, 936 F.3d at 925 (quoting Ibarra v. Manheim Invests., Inc., 775 F.3d 

1193, 1199 (9th Cir. 2015)). Defendant’s proffered assumptions were not reasonable because 

Case 5:19-cv-01540-EJD Document 26 Filed 12/09/19 Page 1 of 2
Case No.: 5:19-cv-01540-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

they were not grounded in facts. Defendant assumed, without providing any evidence, that the 

number of ramp agents currently employed in California by Defendant was a reasonable estimate 

of the number of employees encompassed in the proposed putative 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.” Compl. ¶ 11. Defendant 

also assumed, without providing any evidence, that the lowest base hourly wage for a ramp agent 

under the current collective bargaining agreement was a reasonable estimate of the hourly wage 

for class members 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 v. Manheim Invests., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193,1198 (9th Cir. 2015). 

Defendant’s theory of damages exposure was not supported by real evidence of the number of putative 

class members and their hourly wage rates nor by reasonable assumptions based upon that evidence. 

Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:19-cv-01540-EJD Document 26 Filed 12/09/19 Page 2 of 2