Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00052/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00052-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roofline Supply & Delivery
Defendant
Roofline, Inc.
Defendant
Gary Sifuentes
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

----oo0oo----

GARY SIFUENTES, on behalf of 

himself and all others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROOFLINE, INC. d.b.a. ROOFLINE 

SUPPLY & DELIVERY, an Oregon 

corporation; and DOES 1 through 

100, inclusive,

Defendant.

No. 2:20-cv-00052 WBS KJN 

ORDER RE: MOTION TO REMAND

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Gary Sifuentes filed this class action 

against defendant Roofline, Inc. (“Roofline”) in Sacramento 

County Superior Court alleging various violations of the

California Labor Code. (Compl. (Docket No. 1-1, Ex. A).) 

Defendant removed the action to this court pursuant to the Class 

Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). (Notice of 

Removal (Docket No. 1).) Before the court now is plaintiff’s 

Case 2:20-cv-00052-WBS-KJN Document 15 Filed 03/19/20 Page 1 of 6
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

motion to remand for failure to meet the required amount in 

controversy. (Docket No. 9.) Because of the current situation 

with regard to the Coronavirus and this court’s General Orders 

relating thereto, the court decides the motion without oral 

argument.

I. Background

Defendant employed plaintiff as a non-exempt 

driver/mover in Sacramento for over ten years. (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 

13.) Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of current and 

former non-exempt California-based employees from November 27, 

2015 to the date of final judgment. (Compl. ¶ 25.) Plaintiff 

alleges seven causes of action in connection with his complaint: 

(1) failure to pay overtime wages (Labor Code §§ 204, 510, 558, 

1194, 1198); (2) failure to provide meal periods (Labor Code §§ 

226.7, 512); (3) failure to provide rest periods (Labor Code § 

226.7); (4) failure to provide wages due at separation of 

employment (Labor Code §§ 201-203); (5) failure to provide 

accurate itemized wage statements (Labor Code § 226); (6) failure 

to reimburse necessary business expenses (Labor Code §§ 2802-

2804); and (7) violation of California’s Business & Professions 

Code § 17200, et seq. Defendant filed a notice of removal based 

on CAFA on January 6, 2020. (Docket No. 1.) 

II. Discussion

“Congress designed the terms of CAFA specifically to 

permit a defendant to remove certain class or mass actions into 

federal court.” Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott, 936 F.3d 

920, 924 (9th Cir. 2019) (internal citations omitted). It was 

intended to be interpreted “expansively.” Id. However, certain 

Case 2:20-cv-00052-WBS-KJN Document 15 Filed 03/19/20 Page 2 of 6
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

threshold requirements, such as the amount in controversy, must 

still be met. “CAFA provides the federal district courts with 

‘original jurisdiction’ to hear a ‘class action’ if the class has 

more than 100 members, the parties are minimally diverse, and the 

‘matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000.’” 

Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 568 U.S. 588, 592 (2013) 

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), (d)(5)(B)). 

To determine the amount in controversy, the court must 

first look to the complaint. Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 

F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015). Here, the complaint does not 

allege a specific amount of damages. Instead, it merely states 

that the amount in controversy for the plaintiff and the class 

members “in aggregate, is less than $5,000,000.” (Compl. ¶ 8.) 

Where, as here, the plaintiff “affirmatively states that the 

amount in controversy does not exceed $5 million,” a removing 

defendant “has the burden to put forward evidence showing that he 

amount in controversy exceeds $5 million . . . and to persuade 

the court that the estimate of damages in controversy is a 

reasonable one.” Ibarra, 775 F.3d at 1197. This includes 

affidavits, declarations, or “other summary-judgment-type 

evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time of 

removal.” Id. 

Defendant submitted a declaration from Carla Elliot, 

Manager of Payroll Services for defendant Roofline’s payroll 

services, SRS Distribution, Inc. in support of its motion to 

remand. (See Decl. of Carla Elliot (“Elliot Decl.”) (Docket No. 

1-3).) Elliot declared that, based on Roofline’s records, the 

putative class is composed of approximately 436 members who 

Case 2:20-cv-00052-WBS-KJN Document 15 Filed 03/19/20 Page 3 of 6
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

“worked at least the approximate of 16,280 workweeks, consisting 

of an average of five (5) days per week, either (8) hours per 

day, during the [relevant] period.” (Id. ¶¶ 4-5.) According to 

Elliot’s review, class members would have received an average 

base hourly rate of $19.21. (Id.) Per the records, at least 348 

putative class members were terminated from November 27, 2016 to 

January 2020, and at least 227 putative class members were each 

issued at least 41 wage statements for the applicable pay periods 

from November 27, 2018 to the present. (Id. ¶¶ 7-8.) 

Defendants used those numbers to ascertain the maximum 

amount plaintiffs could seek to recover by calculating what the 

penalties would be if a violation occurred every work day of 

every pay period for every employee during the relevant time 

period. Consequently, defendant estimates plaintiff could claim

$1,563,694 in unpaid meal premiums, $1,563,694 in unpaid rest 

premiums, $1,604,419 in waiting time penalties, $1,246,650 in 

wage statement penalties, and $1,494,614 in attorneys’ fees, 

bringing the amount in controversy to $7,473,071. (Notice of 

Removal at 7.) But when a party relies on a chain of reasoning 

that includes assumptions, those assumptions must be reasonable. 

Ibarra, 775 F.3d. at 1199. While “[a]n assumption may be 

reasonable if it is founded on the allegations of the complaint,”

the Ninth Circuit has suggested “assum[ing] a violation rate of 

100% may or may not [be] valid.” Arias, 936 F.3d at 925. 

In Arias, the Ninth Circuit found Marriott’s removal 

calculation reasonable because it did not assume the maximum 

violation unless the complaint specifically used all-encompassing 

language, such as “not one.” Id. at 926. For example, when 

Case 2:20-cv-00052-WBS-KJN Document 15 Filed 03/19/20 Page 4 of 6
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

plaintiffs claimed defendants “routinely” failed to pay 

compensation for missed rest and meal breaks, Marriott assumed 

they missed 1 rest break per week, and calculated the amount in 

controversy accordingly. Id. Conversely, Marriott used the 

maximum amount when the plaintiff’s complaint said “not one” of 

the wage statements complied with the Labor Code. Id.

Here, defendant relied upon the broad language in the 

complaint (e.g., “at all relevant times” references to 

“policies/practices”) to justify using the maximum potential for 

violation to calculate the amount in controversy. (Opp. at 6-8, 

¶¶ 15-16, 19, 23.) To calculate the amount recoverable for 

unpaid meal and rest period pay, defendant took $19.21 (the 

average base hourly rate for putative class members during the 

four-year period) and multiplied that by 5 (five un-provided meal 

periods per work week) and then multiplied that by 16,280 (weeks 

worked by putative class during the applicable four-year period) 

to arrive at $1,563,694. (Opp. ¶¶ 15-16.) Defendant engaged in 

a similar calculation for waiting time penalties and wage 

statement violations, bringing the total amount in controversy to 

$5,978,457. (Id. ¶¶ 19, 25-26.) Finally, without providing 

evidence, defendant argues it is “not uncommon” for a requested 

attorney fee award to be around 25% of the total recovery, adding 

an additional $1,494,614 to its total amount in controversy. 

(Id. ¶ 27.) 

While the Ninth Circuit has allowed defendants to rely 

on maximum assumptions in limited instances, here, defendants 

lack the level of specificity required to do so. In LaCross v. 

Knight Transportation, Inc., 775 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 2015), the 

Case 2:20-cv-00052-WBS-KJN Document 15 Filed 03/19/20 Page 5 of 6
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

Ninth Circuit found defendant’s use of the maximum assumption was 

reasonable after the defendant included all fuel costs during the 

class period in its calculation of the amount in controversy. 

775 F.3d at 1203. But here, to arrive at the amount in 

controversy, defendant relies on calculations based on averages

rather than concrete costs. (Opp. ¶¶ 15-16, 19, 23, 25-26, 27.) 

While defendant need not “provide evidence proving the 

assumptions correct,” the assumed rate of violations must have 

“some reasonable ground underlying them.” Arias, 936 F.3d at 

925-27 (quoting Ibarra, 775 F.3d at 1199) (internal quotations 

omitted). These maximum assumptions fall short of the Ninth 

Circuit’s guidance for reasonability. See id. at 925-27. 

Accordingly, the defendant has failed to produce appropriate 

evidence to support its amount in controversy calculation, and it 

cannot avail itself of this court’s jurisdiction. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to 

remand (Docket No. 9) be, and the same thereby is, GRANTED; 

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be, and the 

same hereby is, REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of 

California, in and for the County of Sacramento.

Dated: March 18, 2020

 

 

 

Case 2:20-cv-00052-WBS-KJN Document 15 Filed 03/19/20 Page 6 of 6