Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00611/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00611-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1 

18cv611-MMA (NLS) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANNA ALVARADO and CHRISTINE 

TROTTER, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 18cv611-MMA (NLS) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

REMAND; 

[Doc. No. 11] 

REMANDING ACTION TO STATE 

COURT 

 Plaintiffs Anna Alvarado and Christine Trotter (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action 

against Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (“Home Depot”) alleging, inter alia, unfair 

business practices and violations of the California Labor Code. Home Depot removed 

this case to federal court on March 26, 2018. Doc. No. 1. Plaintiffs move to remand on 

grounds that Home Depot has failed to meet its burden to establish the minimum amount 

in controversy necessary for removal under Title 28, United States Code, sections 1332 

and 1441. See Doc. No. 11. Home Depot filed an opposition to the motion to remand, to 

which Plaintiffs replied. See Doc. Nos. 13, 15. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 

GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to remand. 

Case 3:18-cv-00611-MMA-JMA Document 18 Filed 06/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
2 

18cv611-MMA (NLS) 

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

BACKGROUND

 Plaintiffs, both California residents, each served as Assistant Store Managers for 

Home Depot. Plaintiffs allege that Home Depot failed to provide them with overtime 

wages, meal periods, rest periods, vacation wages, wages upon termination, and accurate 

wage statements during their employment. Plaintiffs initially filed suit against Home 

Depot in San Diego County Superior Court on January 29, 2018, alleging claims 

regarding violations of the California Labor Code and California Business and 

Professional Code. Home Depot removed the case to this Court asserting diversity 

jurisdiction. Plaintiffs seek the following relief: (1) nominal and compensatory damages; 

(2) restitution and injunctive relief; (3) penalties pursuant to California Labor Code § 

201, § 203, § 218.5, § 218.6, § 221, § 225.5, § 226, § 226.2, § 226.3, § 226.7, § 512, and 

§ 558; (4) prejudgment and post-judgment interest; (5) costs of suit; (6) attorney’s fees; 

and (7) any further equitable relief. Plaintiffs’ complaint does not indicate the total 

amount of damages sought. 

Plaintiffs now seek to return to state court. Defendant opposes remand, arguing 

that this Court may properly exercise subject matter jurisdiction based on the diversity of 

the parties and the amount in controversy. The parties primarily disagree over whether 

the Court may aggregate the value of Plaintiffs’ claims to meet the amount in 

controversy, and whether the Court may consider post-removal attorney’s fees and prelitigation settlement discussions in calculating the amount in controversy. 

LEGAL STANDARD

 A defendant may remove an action from state court to a federal district court when 

the district court would have had original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. A federal 

district court has original jurisdiction over an action between citizens of different states 

where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

In determining the amount in controversy, the court first looks to the plaintiff’s 

complaint. Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2014). Where 

damages are unstated or ambiguous, the defendant seeking removal bears the burden to 

Case 3:18-cv-00611-MMA-JMA Document 18 Filed 06/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
3 

18cv611-MMA (NLS) 

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

show that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d. 

564, 566-67 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Garza v. Bettcher Indus., Inc., 752 F. Supp. 753, 763 

(E.D. Mich. 1990.). If the plaintiff contests the defendant’s calculations, the parties may 

submit evidence outside the complaint, including affidavits, declarations, and “reasonable 

chain[s] of logic” to substantiate their assertions of the amount in controversy. LaCross 

v. Knight Transp. Inc., 775 F.3d 1200, 1201 (9th Cir. 2015). The court then decides 

whether, by a preponderance of the evidence, the aggregate value of the amount in 

controversy meets the jurisdictional minimum. See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., 

LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 554 (2014). Where the evidence submitted by both sides 

is balanced or “in equipoise,” the court will deny federal jurisdiction. Ibarra, 775 F.3d at 

1199. 

There is a strong presumption against removal, such that the removing party bears 

the burden of establishing that the statutory requirements of federal jurisdiction have been 

met. See Rodriguez v. AT & T Mobility Servs. LLC, 728 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2013). 

The court must remand the case “if there is any doubt as to the right of removal.” Gaus, 

980 F.2d at 566. 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs move for an order remanding this action to state court because “Home 

Depot cannot provide by a preponderance of credible evidence that the minimum amount 

in controversy has been met to permit this court to exercise diversity jurisdiction over this 

action.” Doc. No. 11-1, at 7 (internal quotations omitted). Among other things, Plaintiffs 

argue Home Depot may not aggregate the value of their separate claims, nor include a 

potential award of attorney’s fees in their calculations. Home Depot opposes on grounds 

that Plaintiffs fail to provide evidence showing that removal was improper, and that 

Home Depot reasonably calculated Plaintiffs’ claims in determining the amount in 

controversy exceeds $75,000. 

Case 3:18-cv-00611-MMA-JMA Document 18 Filed 06/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
4 

18cv611-MMA (NLS) 

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

As previously noted, Plaintiffs’ complaint does not indicate the total amount of 

damages sought. However, the total amount in controversy alleged in Plaintiff 

Alvarado’s pre-litigation settlement demand is as follows: 

Claim Potential Amount in Controversy 

Unpaid Overtime $32,795.10 

Unpaid Meal Period Premiums $1,681.03 

Unpaid Rest Period Premiums $8,128.80 

Unpaid Vacation Wages $1,493.76 

Waiting Time Penalties $6,727.20 

PAGA Penalties $8,250 1

TOTAL: $61,826.56 

Home Depot also alleges that $30,000 per plaintiff is a reasonable calculation of 

attorney’s fees, bringing the total amount in controversy for Plaintiff Alvarado to 

approximately $91,826.56. Home Depot further alleges that although Plaintiff Trotter did 

not make a pre-litigation settlement demand, Plaintiff Trotter alleges identical claims to 

Plaintiff Alvarado, and therefore it is reasonable to assume her amount in controversy is 

at least equal to that of Plaintiff Alvarado. 

In calculating their conflicting amounts, the parties disagree over three main points: 

(A) whether Home Depot may aggregate Plaintiffs’ claims to reach the amount in 

controversy; (B) whether post-removal attorney’s fees should be included in the amount 

in controversy; and (C) whether Home Depot has proven the potential value of Plaintiff 

Trotter’s claims by a preponderance of the evidence. 

                                               

1

 The Court notes that Plaintiff Alvarado does not allege a PAGA claim in the complaint. Doc. No. 1, at 

10. Nevertheless, Defendant includes the PAGA penalties in its estimate of the amount in controversy, 

and relies on this amount to meet the jurisdictional requirement. Doc. No. 1, at 4. 

Case 3:18-cv-00611-MMA-JMA Document 18 Filed 06/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
5 

18cv611-MMA (NLS) 

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

A. Plaintiffs’ Claims May Not be Aggregated to Meet the Amount in Controversy 

As an initial matter, Home Depot alleges in the Notice of Removal that Plaintiff 

Alvarado’s claims aggregated with Plaintiff Trotter’s claims exceed the amount in 

controversy jurisdictional requirement. Doc. No. 1, at 6. However, the claims may not 

be aggregated in this manner. Instead, “plaintiffs who seek to enforce separate and 

distinct rights must each have an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000.” Snyder v. 

Harris, 394 U.S. 332, 335-36 (1969). 

In similar cases, when more than one employee sues to recover wages or other 

benefits in a non-class action, courts have not permitted aggregation of the value of the 

individual employees’ claims. See, e.g., Wastier v. Schwan’s Consumer Brands, No. 

07CV1594, 2007 WL 4277552 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2007). For example, in Wastier, three 

plaintiffs, employees of the same company, sought relief under California state law for 

the company failing to pay overtime compensation. The company removed the action 

based on diversity jurisdiction, but the court remanded the action to state court, finding 

that the company improperly aggregated the value of the plaintiffs’ claims in an attempt 

to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. See id. Likewise, Home Depot may 

not aggregate the value of Plaintiffs’ claims in order to meet the required amount in 

controversy. 

B. Post-Removal Attorney’s Fees Are Included in the Amount in Controversy 

Plaintiffs claim attorney’s fees pursuant to sections of the California Labor Code in 

their prayer for relief. The parties agree, “where an underlying statute authorizes an 

award of attorney’s fees, either with mandatory or discretionary language, such fees may 

be included in the amount in controversy.” Galt/GS v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 

1156 (9th Cir. 1998). However, the parties disagree as to whether the Court should 

consider a reasonable estimate of the total anticipated attorney’s fees, or consider only the 

fees incurred at the time of removal, in determining the amount in controversy. 

The Ninth Circuit has not yet expressed an opinion as to whether expected or 

projected future attorney’s fees may properly be considered in controversy at the time of 

Case 3:18-cv-00611-MMA-JMA Document 18 Filed 06/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
6 

18cv611-MMA (NLS) 

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

removal for purposes of the diversity jurisdiction statute, and the decisions of the district 

courts are split on the issue. See, e.g., Davis v. Staples Inc. et al., No. CV 13-8937 FMO, 

2014 WL 29117 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2014) (noting courts are split as to whether only 

attorney’s fees that have accrued at the time of removal should be considered in 

calculating the amount in controversy, or whether the calculation should take into 

account fees likely to accrue over the life of the case). 

In the class action context, the Ninth Circuit has instructed courts to consider “the 

reality of what is at stake in the litigation,” and the defendant’s “damages exposure” 

regarding the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement. Ibarra, 775 F.3d at 1198. 

Thus, where a statute authorizes recovery of fees, many courts consider a reasonable 

estimate of the total projected fees to be incurred during litigation, in order to accurately 

assess a defendant’s damages exposure. See, e.g., Adkins v. J.B. Hunt, 293 F. Supp. 3d 

1140, 1148 (E.D. Cal. 2018); Brady v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 2d 1004, 

1010-11 (N.D. Cal. 2002); Simmons v. PCR Technology, 209 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1034-35 

(N.D. Cal. 2002). 

Here, Plaintiffs sue under multiple sections of the California Labor Code that 

provide for attorney’s fees, both pre- and post-removal, as a factor in evaluating “what is 

at stake in the litigation” and Home Depot’s “damage exposure” regarding the $75,000 

amount in controversy requirement. Ibarra, 775 F.3d at 1198. The parties assert 

different “reasonable estimates” of Plaintiffs’ potential fees. Plaintiffs have not provided 

any set value to determine the attorney’s fees incurred thus far, or potential fees incurred 

in the future. Home Depot alleges that, “the Central District has accepted $300 per hour 

as a reasonable hourly rate for estimation of attorney fees in similar cases.” Doc. No. 13, 

at 8-9. Home Depot relies on this to calculate the projected amount of attorney’s fees for 

this lawsuit as $30,000. 

Even if the Court accepts this as a reasonable fee, Home Depot improperly attributes 

the total amount of the attorney’s fees to each Plaintiff, rather than the Plaintiffs sharing 

the fees pro rata. Goldberg v. CPC Int’l, Inc., 678 F.2d 1365, 1367 (9th Cir. 1982) 

Case 3:18-cv-00611-MMA-JMA Document 18 Filed 06/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
7 

18cv611-MMA (NLS) 

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

(holding that potential attorneys’ fees should be distributed pro rata to each class member 

or plaintiff). Using Home Depot’s estimate, each Plaintiff would incur $15,000 in 

attorney’s fees. 

Home Depot proffers Plaintiff Alvarado’s pre-litigation demand of $61,826.56 in 

conjunction with reasonable attorney’s fees exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold. 

Do. No. 13 at 3. “A settlement letter is relevant evidence of the amount in controversy if 

it appears to reflect a reasonable estimate of the plaintiff’s claim.” Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc.

281 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2002). Where a plaintiff later “attempt[s] to disavow his 

letter or offer[s] contrary evidence,” the letter may lose its persuasive value. Id. The 

“demand,” which Plaintiff’s counsel describes as “inflated,” consisted of multiple claims, 

including a $33,000 PAGA claim of which Plaintiff Alvarado would be entitled to 25% 

($8,250). Do. No. 1, Ex. C at 8. However, Plaintiffs do not include a PAGA claim in the 

lawsuit. Removing the PAGA claim from the equation, the pre-litigation settlement 

demand suggests Plaintiff Alvarado’s damages are only $53,576.56. 

Assuming the Court accepts Home Depot’s $30,000 estimate of attorney’s fees, 

properly pro-rated as $15,000 in fees for each Plaintiff, the amount in controversy for 

Plaintiff Alvarado’s claims would only reach $68, 576.56. Because this does not exceed 

the jurisdictional minimum requirement of $75,000, the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction 

over Plaintiff Alvarado’s claims. 

C. Home Depot Has Not Shown that the Amount in Controversy Exceeds $75,000 

by a Preponderance of the Evidence with Regard to Plaintiff Trotter. 

Home Depot does not provide any independent evidence with regard to the claims 

brought by Plaintiff Trotter. Instead, Home Depot relies solely on the claims brought by 

Plaintiff Alvarado to calculate Plaintiff Trotter’s amount in controversy. Id. Home 

Depot speculates that the alleged value of Plaintiff Trotter’s claims should be higher, 

given that she was an assistant manager for three times as long as Plaintiff Alvarado. Id. 

Plaintiffs point out that, “even though Home Depot has control over Ms. Trotter’s 

Case 3:18-cv-00611-MMA-JMA Document 18 Filed 06/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
8 

18cv611-MMA (NLS) 

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

records, it has chosen to withhold or ignore these records and instead opts to rely on Ms. 

Alvarado’s settlement demand and the Complaint only.” Doc. No. 15, at 7. 

Because Home Depot’s calculations of Plaintiff Trotter’s claims are speculative, 

and given the strong presumption against removal, Home Depot has not met their burden 

of demonstrating that Plaintiff Trotter’s claims exceed the requisite amount in 

controversy. See Roth v. Comerica Bank, 799 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 1127-28 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 

31, 2010); Smith v. Brinker Int’l Inc., No. C10-0213 VRW, 2010 WL 1838726 (N.D. Cal. 

May 5, 2010) (“Because defendants’ calculation of damages for alleged overtime and 

missed meal and rest periods is speculative and based on conjecture, the court limits the 

calculation of the amount in controversy to the reasonably certain amount of statutory 

penalties that could be claimed.”). 

CONCLUSION

 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion and REMANDS

this action to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego. The 

Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: June 5, 2018 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:18-cv-00611-MMA-JMA Document 18 Filed 06/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8