Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02291/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02291-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lionesha Hamilton
Plaintiff
Wayfair LLC
Defendant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIONESHA HAMILTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

WAYFAIR LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-02291-VC 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

REMAND, DENYING AS MOOT 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE 

PLEADINGS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 16, 17

Hamilton’s motion to remand is granted because Wayfair has not met its burden to show 

that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d); Ibarra v. Manheim 

Investments, Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015). 

Wayfair relies on unreasonable assumptions in attempting to meet its burden. For 

instance, Wayfair assumes that Hamilton’s claim for failure to reimburse business expenses 

involves the cost of text messages. But that assumption is pulled from “thin air.” See Ibarra, 775 

F.3d at 1199. There is no reference to text messages in the Strebel declaration submitted by 

Wayfair or in the complaint. Similarly, Wayfair’s assumption of either eight or five meal and rest 

period violations per week is ungrounded in any evidence, and the plaintiff’s passing references 

in the complaint to Wayfair’s policies, patterns, and practices are insufficient to support the 

assumption. See, e.g., Rutledge v. Healthport Techs., LLC, 2017 WL 728375, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 

Feb. 24, 2017) (“The allegation of a policy and practice may make the assumption of violations 

against all class members reasonable. It does not shed light, though, on the frequency of the 

violations.”). And without sufficient allegations or evidence from which to discern a reasonable

violation rate for the overtime and the meal and rest break claims, there is no grounded basis to 

conclude that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.

Case 3:19-cv-02291-VC Document 33 Filed 08/06/19 Page 1 of 2
2

This lawsuit is the type that may well become removable in the course of litigation, 

perhaps as a result of discovery responses by the plaintiff, or through the defendant’s own 

investigation, or both. But the case is not removable now. Admittedly, the issue of whether the 

amount in controversy is satisfied in a CAFA case – and therefore whether removal is warranted

– can be frustrating for defendants. As is true here, plaintiffs may hide the ball to avoid removal, 

and defendants may be either unwilling or unable to submit evidence showing exposure to the 

type of large judgment that would satisfy the jurisdictional requirement. But in these situations, 

defendants need to hold off on removing cases until discovery truly reveals that the amount in 

controversy exceeds $5 million. Perhaps defendants so often remove these cases prematurely 

because they fear that if they don’t do so right away, their subsequent removal could be deemed 

untimely. But they shouldn’t worry about that, because the 30-day removal clock does not start 

running until a defendant can “unambiguously ascertain that CAFA jurisdiction exist[s].” 

Graiser v. Visionworks of America, Inc., 819 F.3d 277, 285 (6th Cir. 2016).

The motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied as moot, and the order to show cause 

is discharged as moot. The case is remanded to Alameda County Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2019

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-02291-VC Document 33 Filed 08/06/19 Page 2 of 2