Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02560/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02560-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332lr Diversity - Labor

---

1

3:15-cv-02560-L-MDD

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

ASHLEE BROOKS PATTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL KORS STORES 

(CALIFORNIA), INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-cv-02560-L-MDD

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

REMAND [Doc. 10]

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Ashlee Brooks Patton’s Motion to Remand. 

The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See 

Civ. L. R. 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion. 

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:15-cv-02560-L-MDD Document 26 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 5
2

3:15-cv-02560-L-MDD

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

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Ashlee Brooks Patton (“Plaintiff”) is a former employee of Defendant 

Michael Kors Inc. (“Defendant”). For a period of forty six weeks, Plaintiff served as an 

assistant store manager for Defendant. (Compl. ¶ [Doc. 1-2].) During this time, Plaintiff 

alleges Defendant violated a number of Labor Code provisions as to her and other 

employees. Accordingly, Plaintiff filed a complaint in California Superior Court, County 

of San Diego, containing individual and Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”), Cal. 

Lab. Code § 2699, claims alleging (1) failure to provide rest periods; (2) failure to 

provide meal periods; (3) failure to pay minimum wage; (4) failure to pay overtime; (5) 

failure to provide accurate wage statements; and (6) failure to provide timely

compensation. (See Compl.) On November 13, 2015, Defendant removed to this Court, 

contending the Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 

(diversity jurisdiction). (See Removal Notice [Doc. 1].) Plaintiff now moves to remand,

asserting diversity jurisdiction is improper because the case does not satisfy the amount 

in controversy element of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (See Mot. [Doc. 10].) Defendant opposes. 

(See Opp’n [Doc. 13].) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 

Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “They possess only that power authorized by 

Constitution or a statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Id. (internal 

citations omitted). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction 

and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” 

Id. (internal citations omitted); see also Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d

676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006). Consistent with the limited jurisdiction of federal courts, the 

removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 

F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Sygenta Crop Prot. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 

(2002); O’Halloran v. Univ. of Wash., 856 F.2d 1375, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). “The strong 

Case 3:15-cv-02560-L-MDD Document 26 Filed 08/15/16 Page 2 of 5
3

3:15-cv-02560-L-MDD

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

presumption against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden 

of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566; see also Nishimoto v. 

Federman-Bachrach & Assoc., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990); O’Halloran, 856 

F.2d at 1380. “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of 

removal in the first instance.” Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566.

Diversity jurisdiction requires (1) complete diversity of citizenship between the 

parties and (2) an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. To 

determine whether the amount in controversy has been met on removal, “[t]he district 

court may consider whether it is ‘facially apparent’ from the complaint that the 

jurisdictional amount is in controversy.” Singer v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 116 

F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997). 

III. DISCUSSION

The dispositive issue presented by this motion is whether Plaintiff’s individual 

claims suffice to meet the amount in controversy element of diversity jurisdiction. For 

the following reasons, the Court finds they do. 

The Complaint includes a claim for unpaid overtime wages. (See Compl. ¶¶ 45–

52.) Under Labor Code sections 510 and 1194 an employer’s failure to compensate a 

non-exempt employee at one and a half times their hourly wage for any hours worked in 

excess of eight in one day or forty in one week renders the employer liable for the unpaid 

balance, interest, attorney fees, and court costs. Cal. Lab. Code §§ 510, 1194. Plaintiff 

alleges that “[d]uring the relevant time period, [Plaintiff] . . . regularly and/or consistently 

worked in excess of eight hours per day, in excess of forty hours per workweek, in excess 

of six days per workweek, and in excess of twelve hours per day.” (Compl. ¶ 48.) The 

relevant time period is Plaintiff’s forty six weeks of employment. Twelve hours of work 

a day, seven days a week, over a forty six week period amounts to 2,024 hours of 

Case 3:15-cv-02560-L-MDD Document 26 Filed 08/15/16 Page 3 of 5
4

3:15-cv-02560-L-MDD

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

overtime.1 Plaintiff’s overtime wage was $33 per hour. Thus, according to the 

Complaint, Plaintiff has earned $66,792 in overtime wages. Plaintiff alleges Defendant 

did not pay her for this overtime work. (Compl. ¶ 49.) Accordingly, the Court finds 

Plaintiff’s overtime claim puts at least $66,792 in controversy. 

The difference between $66,792 and $75,000 is more than accounted for by other 

portions of the Complaint. In her Motion to Remand, Plaintiff herself concedes that her 

meal period, rest period, and wage statement claims combine to put $8,322 in 

controversy. (Mot. 8:13–24; 9:15–28.) Plaintiff’s math does not overstate these 

amounts. Under Labor Code section 226.7 and Industrial Welfare Commission Order 

No. 7-2001 sections 11 and 12, an employer must provide rest and meal periods to nonexempt employees who work, respectively, four and five hour periods. Cal. Lab. Code § 

512 (a); IWC Order §§ 11–12. In lieu of providing these breaks an employer can elect to 

provide a premium payment equal to one hour’s worth of wages. Id. Plaintiff seems to 

allege that, during her employment, she did not receive all rest periods, meal periods, or 

premium payments to which she was entitled. (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 9, 29, 36.) In her Motion to

Remand, Plaintiff contends that her Complaint, when read in conjunction with the 

attached time records and earnings statements, suggests she is owed $6,072 in premium 

payments for two missed meal breaks and ten missed rest periods for each of the twenty 

three pay periods she worked. Accordingly, the Court finds that the rest and meal period 

claims put at least $6,072 in controversy. 

Under Labor Code section 226, an employer has a duty to provide wage statements 

during each pay period containing a number of statutorily required disclosures. Cal. Lab. 

Code § 226(a). An intentional or knowing failure to do so triggers employer liability to 

pay the employee a minimum of $50 for the initial violation and $100 for each 

subsequent violation up to a maximum of $4,000. Cal. Lab. Code § 226(e)(1). Here, 

 

1

(12 [hours worked a day] x 7 [days worked per week] = 84 hours per week; 84 – 40 = 44 hours of 

overtime per week; 44 x 46 [weeks worked] = 2,024 hours of overtime)

Case 3:15-cv-02560-L-MDD Document 26 Filed 08/15/16 Page 4 of 5
5

3:15-cv-02560-L-MDD

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

Plaintiff concedes that the Complaint suggests a total of twenty three violations of § 

226(a). (See Compl. ¶¶ 53–58; Mot. 9:15–28.) Accordingly, the Court finds the wage 

statement claim puts at least $2,250 ($50 + $100 x 22) in controversy.

Adding together the overtime, rest period, meal period, and wage statement, the 

Court finds that, at a minimum, this case puts $75,114 in controversy. Considering that 

Plaintiff’s other individual claims and the attorney’s fees for her individual claims would 

only increase that number, the Court finds the amount in controversy element is met. 

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [Doc. 

10] and DENIES AS MOOT Defendant’s Motion to Supplement the Removal Notice 

[Doc. 20]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2016

CC: the Honorable Mitchell D. Dembin 

Case 3:15-cv-02560-L-MDD Document 26 Filed 08/15/16 Page 5 of 5