Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00921/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00921-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEN ADAMS, on behalf of 

himself, all others similarly 

situated, and the general 

public,

Plaintiff,

v.

MEDICAL STAFFING NETWORK

HEALTHCARE, LLC; DOES 2-50, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-00921-GEB-AC

ORDER GRANTING REMAND MOTION 

Plaintiff seeks an order remanding this putative class 

action to the state court from which it was removed, arguing that 

removal jurisdiction asserted under the Class Action Fairness Act 

of 2005 (“CAFA”) does not exist since Defendant has not shown 

that CAFA’s $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement is 

satisfied. (Pl.’s Mot. to Remand (“Pl.’s Mot.”) 1:6-9, ECF No. 

10.) Defendant counters that it has “presented concrete evidence 

demonstrating . . . that the amount in controversy . . . exceeds 

$7.9 million.” (Def.’s Opp’n to Mot. to Remand (“Def.’s Opp’n”) 

1:3-5, ECF No. 14.)

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges in his First Amended Complaint 

(“FAC”) the following claims under California law: 1) failure to 

provide meal and rest periods, 2) failure to provide accurate 

Case 2:13-cv-00921-GEB-AC Document 26 Filed 12/06/13 Page 1 of 9
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

written wage statements, 3) failure to timely pay all final 

wages, and 4) unfair competition. (FAC, Not. of Removal Ex. C, 

ECF No. 4-3.) Plaintiff defines the class in the FAC as Plaintiff 

“and all other similarly situated health care professionals whose 

tax home is in California and/or worked in the State of 

California for Defendant[], during the relevant time period [] 

defined as . . . beginning from July 2, 2010, until judgment is 

entered.” (Id. 3:13-16.) 

Defendant asserts in its Notice of Removal that the

amount in controversy is $7.9 million, based on the following 

calculations concerning each claim and attorneys’ fees:

Claim 1. Failure to provide meal and rest 

periods - $3.88 million

Claim 2. Failure to provide accurate written 

wage statements - $.97 million

Claim 3. Failure to timely pay all final 

wages - $1.48 million

Attorneys’ Fees - $1.58 million (calculated 

as 25% of the above damages)

(Not. of Removal ¶¶ 28, 32, 37, 40, 41 ECF No. 2.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“Federal jurisdiction under CAFA has three elements: 

(1) there must be minimal diversity of citizenship between the 

parties, (2) the proposed class must have at least 100 members 

and (3) the amount in controversy must exceed[] the sum or value 

of $5,000,000.” Kuxhausen v. BMW Fin. Servs. NA LLC, 707 F.3d 

1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

“[T]he burden of establishing [CAFA] removal jurisdiction [is] on 

the proponent of federal jurisdiction.” Abrego Abrego v. Dow 

Case 2:13-cv-00921-GEB-AC Document 26 Filed 12/06/13 Page 2 of 9
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

Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 685 (9th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). “A 

defendant seeking removal of a putative class action [under CAFA]

must demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, that the 

aggregate amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional 

minimum.” Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Servs., 728 F.3d 975, 981 

(9th Cir. 2013). However, “[c]onclusory allegations as to the 

amount in controversy are insufficient” to establish the 

jurisdictional amount. Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. 

Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2003). Rather, under the 

preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, the removing “defendant 

must provide evidence establishing that it is ‘more likely than 

not’ that the amount in controversy exceeds [the jurisdictional] 

amount” of $5,000,000. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102

F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996).

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant relies on information from Rochelle Flint, a 

generalist in Defendant’s human resources department, as support 

for its contention that the amount in controversy exceeds the 

$5,000,000 sum or value. (Decl. of Rochelle Flint in Supp. of 

Def.’s Not. of Removal (“Flint Decl.”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 3.) Ms. Flint 

declares she “reviewed referral and placement records” for 

Defendant’s healthcare professionals and found that Defendant 

referred “1,068 California-based healthcare professionals” to 

staffing sites “between September 28, 2010 and April 22, 2013.” 

(Id. ¶¶ 6, 8.) Ms. Flint avers that during this period, these 

healthcare professionals worked a total of approximately 78,905 

work-shifts of such length that employees would be entitled to at

least one meal and one rest period under California law. (Id.

Case 2:13-cv-00921-GEB-AC Document 26 Filed 12/06/13 Page 3 of 9
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

4

¶ 11.) She avers that “[t]o calculate an approximate and 

conservative average rate of pay” for these employees, she 

“reviewed available pay records” for four of its five California 

staffing agency branches for the month of October 2011 to arrive 

at an average rate of pay of $24.59 per hour for each referenced 

employee. (Id. ¶ 12.)

Defendant argues Ms. Flint’s information evinces that 

the amount in controversy exceeds $7.9 million. (Not. of Removal 

¶ 41.) The largest portion of this amount-in-controversy figure 

is Defendant’s estimate of Plaintiff’s meal and rest period 

claims, totaling $3.9 million. (Id. ¶ 28.) Under California law, 

“[i]f an employer fails to provide an employee a meal or rest 

period . . ., the employer” is required to “pay the employee one 

additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of 

compensation for each work day that the meal or rest period is 

not provided.” Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7(b). Employees “may recover 

up to two additional hours of pay on a single work day for meal 

period and rest period violations—one for failure to provide a 

meal period and another for failure to provide a rest period.” 

United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Sup. Ct., 196 Cal. App. 4th 57, 70 

(2011).

Defendant arrived at the $3.9-million figure by 

assuming a 100% violation rate; Defendant assumed that each class 

member was deprived of one meal period and one rest period per 

shift worked. Defendant calculated its $3.9-million figure as 

follows: 

Meal Periods: 78,905 shifts x 1 missed meal 

period/shift x $24.59/hour = $1,940,274 

Case 2:13-cv-00921-GEB-AC Document 26 Filed 12/06/13 Page 4 of 9
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

5

Rest Periods: 78,905 shifts x 1 missed rest 

period/shift x $24.59/hour = $1,940,274

Total: $3,880,548.1

(Not. of Removal ¶ 28.)

Plaintiff counters that this calculation and figure is 

improperly based on “speculation.” (Pl.’s Mot. 7:4.) 

Specifically, Plaintiff contends Defendant’s $24.59 average 

hourly rate of pay and 100% violation rate are both flawed and 

cannot support removal jurisdiction. (Id. 7:19-12:23.)

Plaintiff argues the $24.59 average hourly rate of pay 

is unreliable because “[i]nstead of analyzing available data for 

the entirety of the class period for all branches in California, 

Defendant merely reviewed records for a one month period for 

select branches from the class.” (Id. 9:2-4.) Defendant does not 

explain why it made its hourly wage estimate based only on a 

review of four of its five California branches. (See Flint Decl. 

¶ 12.) Nor has Defendant offered an explanation for why it relied 

on an average instead of using actual, individual wage data from 

its records. Further, Defendant admits hourly wages “can vary 

from client to client, branch to branch, and year to year,” yet 

does not explain why it concludes that the average hourly wage it 

calculated for October 2011 is indicative of an average hourly 

wage for the entire class period. (Def.’s Opp’n 4:7.) Therefore,

even assuming inclusion of data from the excluded fifth branch 

would not change the average wage figure Defendant calculated for 

October 2011, Defendant has not demonstrated that the October 

2011 figure is a reliable average wage for class members during 

 

1 This figure is rounded upward and is hereinafter referenced as $3.9 million.

Case 2:13-cv-00921-GEB-AC Document 26 Filed 12/06/13 Page 5 of 9
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

6

the class period.

Plaintiff also argues that Defendant’s use of 100%

violation rates for the meal and rest period claims is improper 

because “Plaintiff does not contend that every single employee of 

Defendant in California missed every single meal period,” nor

“that he and the class were never authorized or permitted to take 

any rest breaks at all.” (Pl.’s Mot. 10:2-3, 12:11-12.) Plaintiff 

asserts he “only seeks to represent those individuals who 

suffered a violation of the law—not every single employee for 

every shift they worked.” (Id. 12:12-14.)

Defendant rejoins that the 100% violation rates “are 

not assumptions at all, but instead allegations in Plaintiff[’s]

FAC that are assumed true for purposes of removal.” (Def.’s Opp’n 

15:17-18.) Defendant cites to the introduction of the FAC where 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant “fail[ed] to provide [the class] 

with all required meal and rest periods.” (FAC 2:3-4 (emphasis 

added).) The word “all” in this sentence of the FAC suggests 

Plaintiff alleges Defendant provided class members some but not 

“all required meal and rest periods.” (Id. (emphasis added).) 

However, Defendant interprets the word “all” to mean “any”; i.e., 

Defendant failed to provide the class with any required meal and 

rest periods.

Additional allegations in the FAC support Plaintiff’s 

position that the word “all” should not be interpreted to mean

“any.” Plaintiff’s FAC defines meal period classes as “[a]ll 

employees who worked a shift” in excess of a certain number of 

hours “who either: a) Did not take their meal break” or “b) Were 

not provided their . . . uninterrupted 30 minute meal break.” 

Case 2:13-cv-00921-GEB-AC Document 26 Filed 12/06/13 Page 6 of 9
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

7

(FAC 3:22-4:2.) Plaintiff’s FAC defines the rest break similarly 

with the description “[a]ll employee[s] who.” (Id. 2:3.) The FAC 

uses the word “all” in the phrase “all employees who” as an openended description of an indefinite, potential number of 

violations. Therefore, Defendant has not shown allegations in the

FAC support its 100% violation rates. 

Moreover, Defendant cannot, as it has done in the 

motion sub judice, “assume[] that each employee would be entitled 

to the maximum statutory penalty” without providing “evidence 

supporting that assertion.” Garibay v. Archstone Communities LLC, 

No. 13-56151, 2013 WL 4517934, at *1 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2013); 

see also Helmerich & Payne Int’l Drilling Co., 2013 WL 5274283 at 

*6 (holding that because the defendant failed “to provide any 

facts supporting the calculations based upon 100% violations, 

[d]efendant has failed to carry the burden to demonstrate by a 

preponderance of the evidence that the amount of damages in 

controversy exceeds $5,000,000”); Kogok v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 

No. 13-cv-838 BEN (BLM), 2013 WL 5679021, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 

15, 2013) (“[Defendant] has not presented any evidence that [a 

100% violation rate] is an accurate assumption, nor does such an 

allegation appear in the FAC. Accordingly, [defendant] has not 

established by a preponderance of the evidence that over $5 

million is in controversy . . . .”). 

In sum, Defendant “rel[ies] on speculative and selfserving assumptions about key unknown variables,” which are 

“insufficient to support removal jurisdiction under CAFA” 

Garibay, 2013 WL 4517934 at *1. Defendant has provided nothing 

more than conclusory explanations to support its $3.9 million

Case 2:13-cv-00921-GEB-AC Document 26 Filed 12/06/13 Page 7 of 9
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

8

figure for meal and rest period monetary claims argued to support 

the amount-in-controversy requirement. Removing Defendant’s 

conclusory estimate of meal and rest period penalties and 

accompanying attorneys’ fees, which Defendant assumes are 

recovered at 25%, the amount in controversy is reduced from 

Defendant’s asserted $7.9 million figure to $3.02 million.2 Since 

Defendant’s asserted estimate of meal and rest period penalties 

was so inflated, Defendant's estimates for the wage statement and 

waiting time claims need not be addressed to determine that 

Defendant has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that 

the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.3

Lastly, Defendant notes in its Opposition that should 

it be concluded “that the exercise of federal jurisdiction is 

[not] proper,” it “requests that the Court allow the parties to 

engage in limited discovery regarding the amount in controversy.” 

(Def.’s Opp’n 17 n.16.) District courts have discretion to

authorize jurisdictional discovery, but Defendant has not 

indicated what materials it would seek in discovery. Further,

 

2 $7.9 million - $3.9 million [meal and rest period penalties] – 25% x $3.9 

million [attorneys’ fees] = $3.02 million

3 For example, assuming Defendant’s average hourly rate of pay of $24.59 is 

correct and a lower violation rate than what Defendant asserts should be used

of one violation per week (or 20%, assuming five shifts per week), then the 

estimated meal and rest period damage figure would be reduced to $.78 million 

(20% x $3.88 million = $.78 million). See Tripp v. Crossmark, Inc., No. 13-cv03480-WHO, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144154, at *5 n.2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2013) 

(compiling authorities holding that “where plaintiffs[] allege a practice and 

policy of denying meal and rest periods, defendants can reasonably base their 

amount in controversy calculation on an estimate that each class member missed 

one meal and rest break per” week). Assuming Defendant’s other damage

estimates are accurate, even assuming arguendo that use of the 100% violation 

rate for wage statement and waiting time claims is accurate, then estimated 

damages before adding attorneys’ fees would be $3.23 million ($.78 million 

[meal and rest period claims] + $.97 million [wage statement claim] + $1.48 

million [waiting time claim] = $3.23 million). Adding attorneys’ fees at 

Defendant’s assumed rate of 25% of total recovery, the total amount in 

controversy would be $4.04 million ($3.23 million [total recovery] x 125% = 

$4.04 million). 

Case 2:13-cv-00921-GEB-AC Document 26 Filed 12/06/13 Page 8 of 9
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

9

averments in Ms. Flint’s declaration suggest that Defendant is 

already in possession of records detailing each employee’s hourly 

wage for each work shift during the class period. (See Flint 

Decl.) Therefore, “[a]llowing for judicial discovery would be an 

unnecessary delay” because it appears Defendant has not shown it 

does not have “the records necessary to show whether the amount 

in controversy is met.” Trang v. Turbine Engine Components Techs. 

Corp., No. 12-cv-07658-DDP-RZx, 2012 WL 6618854, at *7 (C.D. Cal. 

Dec. 19, 2012).

Accordingly, Defendant’s noted request for 

jurisdictional discovery is denied.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the stated reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to remand is 

GRANTED. This case is remanded to the Superior Court of the State 

of California in the County of Sacramento, from which it was 

removed.

Dated: December 5, 2013

Case 2:13-cv-00921-GEB-AC Document 26 Filed 12/06/13 Page 9 of 9