Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01103/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01103-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1352 Miller Act

---

1

19cv1103

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

CARTER POOL

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERIPARK, LLC

Defendant.

Case No.: 19cv1103-LAB (WVG)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

REMAND; AND

ORDER REQUIRING 

DEFENDANT TO FILE 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

Plaintiff Carter Pool filed this putative wage and hour class action in 

California state court on behalf of himself and a class of 616 to 6851 parking valets 

employed by AmeriPark. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges (1) failure to provide rest 

periods; (2) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (3) failure to 

timely pay all wages due upon separation of employment; (4) failure to indemnify 

necessary business expenses; (5) violation of Business & Professions Code 

§§17200, et seq.; (6) wrongful constructive termination; (7) unlawful retaliation; and 

violation of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). 

 

1 AmeriPark claims there are 616 putative class members, while Pool sets the 

number at 685.

Case 3:19-cv-01103-LAB-WVG Document 19 Filed 03/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2

19cv1103

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

AmeriPark removed the case, citing both ordinary diversity jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. §1332(a) and jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 

(CAFA). See Lewis v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 398 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(holding that putative class action can be removed under § 1332(a) if at least one 

named plaintiff satisfies the amount in controversy requirement); Serrano v. 180 

Connect, Inc., 478 F.3d 1018, 1021 n.4 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that CAFA 

supplements rather than supplants § 1332 jurisdiction).

In order for the Court to exercise jurisdiction under CAFA, any member of 

the class must be a citizen of a state different from the Defendant, and the amount 

in controversy must exceed $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs. PAGA 

penalties are also not included in the amount in controversy. See Fritsch v. Swift 

Transp. Co. of Ariz., LLC, 899 F.3d 785, 790 (9th Cir. 2018).

Pool has filed a motion for remand, arguing that AmeriPark has failed to 

demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy 

exceeds $5 million for the class action claims or $75,000 for Plaintiff’s individual 

claims.

The Court is also obligated to inquire, sua sponte if necessary, whenever a 

doubt arise as to its jurisdiction. See Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. 

Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278 (1977).

Legal Standards

The Court must presume it lacks jurisdiction, until the party invoking the 

Court’s jurisdiction proves otherwise. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 

511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). There is a “strong presumption” against ordinary 

removal jurisdiction, and “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt 

as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 

(9th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). This presumption does not apply to removal 

under CAFA, although the party invoking federal jurisdiction still bears the burden 

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-01103-LAB-WVG Document 19 Filed 03/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3

19cv1103

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

of establishing it. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 

554 (2014).

The removal notice “need include only a plausible allegation that the amount 

in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold,” unless it is contested Dart, 

135 S. Ct. at 554. If the plaintiff contests it, however, evidence establishing the 

amount in controversy is required, and the Court decides whether the 

preponderance standard has been met. Id. at 550. 

Where, as here, the complaint does not plead a specific amount in 

controversy or seek a specific amount of damages, a defendant asserting removal 

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., LLC, 728 F.3d 975, 981 (9th Cir. 2013). “In measuring 

the amount in controversy, a court must assume that the allegations of the 

complaint are true and that a jury will return a verdict for the plaintiff on all claims 

made in the complaint.” Korn v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp., 536 F.Supp.2d 1199, 

1205 (E.D. Cal. 2008). The preponderance of the evidence standard requires a 

defendant to “provide evidence establishing that it is ‘more likely than not’ that the 

amount in controversy exceeds that amount.” Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. 

Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir.1986).

When the amount in controversy is disputed, the Court considers factual 

allegations in the removal petition, as well as any relevant “summary-judgmenttype evidence.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 

(9th Cir. 2003). The Court may also rely on its own knowledge of customary 

attorney’s fee rates when evaluating reasonable and proper fees. See Fritsch, 899 

F.3d at 795. 

Of course, the Court may rely on “judicial experience and common sense” in 

determining whether the amount in controversy is apparent from the face of the 

complaint. See Dourian v. Stryker Corp., 2012 WL 12893752, at *1 (C.D. Cal., Apr. 

Case 3:19-cv-01103-LAB-WVG Document 19 Filed 03/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4

19cv1103

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

25, 2012) (citing Roe v. Michelin N. Am. Inc., 613 F.3d 1058, 1062 (11th Cir. 2010)).

Any estimates or assumptions must be reasonable. See Ibarra v. Manheim 

Investments, Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015) (CAFA jurisdiction cannot 

be based on “mere speculation and conjecture, with unreasonable assumptions”).

Diversity of Citizenship

The notice of removal correctly pleads facts showing Pool and AmeriPark 

are diverse for § 1332(a) purposes. Under CAFA, however, an unincorporated 

association is deemed a citizen of the state where it has its principal place of 

business and the state under whose laws it is organized. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(10).

While the notice of removal’s caption says AmeriPark is a Georgia LLC, it does not 

identify AmeriPark’s principal place of business. It may be that AmeriPark’s 

principal place of business is in Georgia, but that is for AmeriPark, as the party 

invoking the Court’s jurisdiction, to allege.

Factual Allegations and Claims

According to the complaint, Pool was employed as a parking valet in San 

Diego from November 11, 2013 to January 25, 2019. At the time he left 

AmeriPark’s employment, he was earning $11.50 per hour. Pool’s schedule was 

variable, although he generally worked 5 to 8 hours per day on the days when he 

worked. The complaint alleges AmeriPark’s practice was to schedule valets to 

work alone, such that no one was available to relieve them. (Compl., ¶ 29.) This 

meant that valets did not get required rest breaks, and AmeriPark did not pay them

for the missed breaks. AmeriPark’s continued failure to make up for these lost 

payments, and to provide accurate wage statements, gave rise to related claims.

Pool also brings claims only on his own behalf, including a claim for wrongful 

termination in violation of public policy and retaliation. He alleges that AmeriPark 

retaliated against him and constructively terminated him for reporting what 

he reasonably believed to be unlawful behavior, namely his supervising manager’s

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-01103-LAB-WVG Document 19 Filed 03/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5

19cv1103

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

illegal participation in the valet tip pool. He seeks compensatory damages for lost 

earnings and emotional distress, and punitive damages.

Jurisdiction Under § 1332(a)

On their own, Pool’s wage-based claims are well below the $75,000. 

AmeriPark’s estimates in the notice of removal are plausible, and supported by a 

reasonable construction of the complaint. PAGA penalties should not have been 

included, however. See Fritsch, 899 F.3d at 790. And only attorney’s fees 

attributable to Pool’s own claims should have been included. See Gibson v. 

Chrysler, 261 F.3d 927, 941–42 (9th Cir. 2001).

The claims for emotional distress can be valued by citing awards in 

analogous or similar cases. See Avila v. Kiewit Corp., 2019 WL 4729641, slip op. 

at *3 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 26, 2019). While the cases AmeriPark cites do involve 

emotional distress, they are not completely analogous, and his award is likely to 

be lower. They are relevant, but by themselves are not completely convincing.

That being said, if Pool prevails on his claim that he was retaliated against 

or constructively terminated for complaining about violations of the state labor code 

pertaining to misappropriation of employees’ tips (see Complaint, ¶¶ 38–42), he 

could very likely recover more than $75,000 for that in the form of compensatory 

damages and emotional distress, and perhaps most significantly punitive 

damages. Prohibitions on management’s taking a share of employee tips are well 

established. See, e.g., Chau v. Starbucks Corp., 174 Cal. App. 4th 688, 701–02 

(Cal. App., 2009). Parking valets are commonly tipped, and common sense 

suggests this forms an important part of their income. Therefore any violation 

would likely substantially affect the income of many workers. Furthermore, a large 

company such as AmeriPark that employs at least several hundred tipped 

employees would be expected to know all this. 

Pool alleges that he told several highly-placed members of AmeriPark’s 

management about the tip violations. Instead of investigating his complaints, he 

Case 3:19-cv-01103-LAB-WVG Document 19 Filed 03/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6

19cv1103

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

alleges, they accused him of making false accusations, then apparently told Pool’s 

manager, who became particularly hostile to him. After that, Pool alleges, 

supervisors cut his hours, and changed his work location and schedule without 

telling him. He also alleges they suspended him without pay for, giving

explanations a jury could reasonably find pretextual. The retaliation Pool complains 

of was carried out by several supervisors over time, apparently as a concerted 

effort to punish him, and was harsh enough that it could be expected to chill any 

further complaints. Punishing an employee for complaining to management about 

this kind of violation would likely be seen as oppressive and requiring deterrence

in the form of substantial punitive damages.

On the basis of the evidence presented, and the Court’s experience and 

common sense, the Court finds by a preponderance that the amount in controversy 

for diversity jurisdiction under § 1332(a) is met.

CAFA Jurisdiction

Because the Court finds it can exercise diversity jurisdiction under § 1332(a), 

it need not make a definitive ruling on CAFA jurisdiction at this time. The pleading 

defect, mentioned above, means the Court cannot yet confirm that it has CAFA 

jurisdiction regardless of the amount in controversy. Nevertheless, it may become 

necessary to evaluate CAFA jurisdiction later in the case, particularly if Pool’s 

claims are dismissed before the case is resolved.

When the amount in controversy is disputed, the Court considers factual 

allegations in the removal petition, as well as any relevant “summary-judgmenttype evidence.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 

(9th Cir. 2003). The removal petition relies on a good deal of interpretation of the 

complaint’s allegations. Both parties requested judicial notice, but the evidence 

they ask the Court to notice consist mostly of records in other cases, and affidavits 

in support of attorney’s fees. The fact that PAGA damages were erroneously 

included in the total means that this is a closer call than AmeriPark’s briefing would 

Case 3:19-cv-01103-LAB-WVG Document 19 Filed 03/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7

19cv1103

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

suggest. While courts can and do parse allegations in a complaint finely and 

examine the reasonableness of estimates in order to determine the amount of 

damages sought, the Court finds it prudent in these circumstances to reserve on 

this point.

Notably absent from the briefing are any records regarding payroll, work 

schedules, or wages, which AmeriPark presumably has access to, and which could 

clarify the complaint’s allegations considerably. These form the bulk of the claims, 

and because this is a putative class action they will eventually come into play 

anyway. AmeriPark is directed to obtain employment records for the class, and to 

file a supplement to the notice of removal giving details substantiating its 

contention regarding the wage and hour damages claims with reference to actual 

hours, schedules, wages, and the like. The supplement should also correct the 

CAFA diversity pleading defect identified above.

Conclusion and Order

For these reasons, the motion to remand is DENIED. AmeriPark must file the 

required supplement within 35 calendar days of the date this order is entered 

in the docket. But if AmeriPark requires more time, it should it should file either a 

joint motion or ex parte motion, explaining the reason. 

The parties must also communicate with each other and endeavor to confirm 

the actual number of putative class members.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2020

Honorable Larry Alan Burns

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01103-LAB-WVG Document 19 Filed 03/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7