Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01156/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01156-1/pdf.json

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAULA DITTMAR, an individual, on

behalf of herself and all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14-CV-1156-LAB-JLB

ORDER

vs.

COSTCO WHOLESALE

CORPORATION, Washington

corporation, and DOES 1 through 25,

inclusive,

Defendants.

The Ninth Circuit remanded this action to this Court to consider the relevance, if any,

of the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v.

Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (2014), and the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Ibarra v. Manheim

Investments, Inc., 775 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2015). Those cases explain "when the defendant's

assertion of the amount in controversy is challenged by plaintiffs in a motion to remand . . .

both sides submit proof and the court then decides where the preponderance lies." Ibarra,

775 F.3d at 1198. In Ibarra, the defendant relied on an assumption about the rate of its

alleged labor law violations that was not grounded in real evidence, and the plaintiff contested

the assumption without asserting an alternative violation rate grounded in real evidence. 

/ / /

- 1 -

Case 3:14-cv-01156-JLB Document 25 Filed 04/23/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 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

Id. at 1199. The Ninth Circuit remanded "for both sides to submit proof related to the

disputed amount in controversy." Id. 

As in Ibarra, Costco relies on several assumptions. See Dittmar v. Costco Wholesale

Corp., 2014 WL 6892189, at *4-6 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2014). For example, it assumes all

putative class members were harmed in an equal and uniform manner. Id. at *4. When

calculating the unpaid overtime claim, it assumes fifteen minutes of unpaid overtime for every

two-week period. Id. When calculating the incorrect itemized wage statements claim, it

assumes an almost 100% violation rate. Id. at *5. It also assumes that figures for "salaried

nonexempt pharmacy managers and other department managers working in California from

April 3, 2010 to April 3, 2014" are relevant in calculating total damages for the "Department

Manager Class." Id. Dittmar contests these assumptions, but doesn't allege an alternative

violation rate, e.g., based on her observations as a former employee.

Consistent with Ibarra and Dart, the Court ORDERS "both sides to submit proof

related to the disputed amount in controversy" so it can "determine if a preponderance of the

evidence shows that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million." Ibarra, 775 F.3d at

1199. The parties may submit "affidavits or declarations, or other summary-judgment-type

evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time of removal." Id. at 1197 (quotation

omitted). Costco shall file a response no later than May 4, 2015 and Dittmar shall file a reply

no later than May 11, 2015. The parties' filings shall be no longer than five pages, not

counting any lodged or appended materials.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 23, 2015

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 -

Case 3:14-cv-01156-JLB Document 25 Filed 04/23/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2