IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

ROSS REDDICK, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GLOBAL CONTACT SOLUTIONS, LLC, 

Defendant. 

PAP AK, Magistrate Judge: 

3:15-CV-425-PK 

FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

Plaintiff Ross Reddick filed this putative class action against defendant Global Contact 

Solutions, LLC ("GCS"), in the Multnomah County Circuit Court on behalf of himself and all 

others similarly situated on Januaiy 29, 2015. By and through his state-court complaint, Reddick 

alleged GCS' liability under Oregon statutory law for failure to pay wages and for failure to pay 

all wages due and owing at the termination of employment, both such failures arising out of GCS' 

alleged practice of requiring all of its employees to attend mandato1y training at the beginning of 

Page 1, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 3:15-cv-00425-PK Document 30 Filed 07/30/15 Page 1 of 7
their employment, without compensation. GCS removed Reddick's action to this comi effective 

March 13, 2015, on the purpo1ied basis of original federal jurisdiction under the Class Action 

Fairness Act of2005 ("CAFA"). Reddick moved for remand of this action to the Multnomah 

County Comi on April 15, 2015, and oral argument was held in connection with Reddick's 

motion on May 26, 2015. 

Following oral argument in connection with Reddick's motion, on June 1, 2015, I issued 

an Opinion and Order and Order (#17) to Show Cause directing both Reddick and GCS to show 

cause within 45 days why Reddick's action should not be remanded to state court for lack of 

federal subject-matter jurisdiction. By and through that order, I noted that, on the arguendo 

assumption that GCS had been or would be successful in establishing the four elements of 

federal subject-matter jurisdiction under CAF A - namely, that (1) the amount in controversy 

exceeds five million dollars exclusive of interest and costs, (2) any plaintiff class member is a 

citizen of a state different from any defendant, (3) the primmy defendants are not states, state 

officials, or other government entities against whom the district comi may be foreclosed from 

ordering relief, and ( 4) the number of plaintiffs in the class or classes at issue is at least 100, see 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2), (d)(5); see also Serrano v. 180 Connect, Inc., 478 F.3d 1018, 

1020-1021, 1021 n. 3, 1021n.4 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted)-such evidence ofrecord as 

was material to the question and such material data as was fit for judicial notice nevertheless 

suggested the empirical likelihood, but fell shoti of establishing, that this cou1i could be obliged 

to refrain from the exercise of jurisdiction under CAF A pursuant to one or both of two 

mandatory abstention rules codified at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(4)(A) and 1332(d)(4)(B) (or, 

alternatively, that this court could enjoy discretion to refrain from the exercise of CAF A 

Page 2 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 3:15-cv-00425-PK Document 30 Filed 07/30/15 Page 2 of 7
jurisdiction pursuant to the discretionary abstention rule codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(3)). 

The "local controversy" exception codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A) requires federal 

courts to decline to exercise CAF A jurisdiction over: 

(i) ... a[ny] class action in which-

(I) greater than two-thirds of the members of all proposed plaintiff 

classes in the aggregate are citizens of the State in which the action 

was originally filed; 

(II) at least 1 defendant is a defendant-

(aa) from whom significant relief is sought by members of the 

plaintiff class; 

(bb) whose alleged conduct fo1ms a significant basis for the 

claims asserted by the proposed plaintiff class; and 

(cc) who is a citizen of the State in which the action was 

originally filed; and 

(Ill) principal injuries resulting from the alleged conduct or any related 

conduct of each defendant were incurred in the State in which the 

action was originally filed; and 

(ii) during the 3-year period preceding the filing of that class action, no other 

class action has been filed asserting the same or similar factual allegations 

against any of the defendants on behalf of the same or other persons .... 

28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A). The "home-state controversy" exception codified at 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(d)(4)(B) similarly requires the federal courts to decline to exercise CAFAjurisdiction over 

any class action in which "two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in 

the aggregate, and the primary defendants, are citizens of the State in which the action was 

originally filed." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B). The Ninth Circuit treats these provisions as setting 

f011h "exceptions to jurisdiction" under CAFA. Serrano, 478 F.3d at 1023. 

In consequence, and because of the importance of avoiding federal disposition of any 

Page 3 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 3:15-cv-00425-PK Document 30 Filed 07/30/15 Page 3 of 7
claim not subject to federal jurisdiction, I directed both pmiies to submit evidence or argument 

material to the applicability or non-applicability of those abstention rules (chiefly, evidence or 

argument relevant to the dete1mination of the state of citizenship of the putative class members 

as of the date this action was removed to federal court). In addition, I stayed further proceedings 

in this action other than discove1y calculated to lead to the production of admissible evidence 

regarding the place of citizenship of the members of Reddick's proposed class of plaintiffs as of 

the date this action was removed, pending this court's determination regarding its subject-matter 

jurisdiction to consider Reddick's claims. 

On July 16, 2015, both GCS and Reddick responded to the Order to Show Cause. GCS 

responded by reiterating its previously proffered argument that Reddick has failed to meet his 

burden in connection with his motion for remand to establish that this court lacks subject-matter 

jurisdiction over his claims, while Reddick responded by asserting that this court should remand 

his action because GCS' response to the Order to Show Cause was inadequate, and in the 

altemative by requesting a seven-day extension ohime to supplement his response, in order to 

permit review of approximately 11,000 pages of documents produced to him by GCS bearing on 

the citizenship of the members of the proposed class. 

On July 21, 2015, I granted Reddick's request for a seven-day extension of time, directing 

him to supplement his response with evidence and argument regarding the place of citizenship of 

the members of his proposed class of plaintiffs as of the date this action was removed, by not 

later than midnight on Tuesday, July 28, 2015. In addition, I noted as follows: 

As to GCS' response, I agree with Reddick as to its inadequacy to establish that 

this comi may properly exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. If at 

any time prior to final judgment it appears that a federal comi lacks subject-matter 

jurisdiction over a removed case, the comi must remand the action to state comi. 

Page 4 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 3:15-cv-00425-PK Document 30 Filed 07/30/15 Page 4 of 7
See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The question of who bears the burden of persuasion 

under CAFA in connection with a motion to remand is immaterial to this court's 

sua sponte determination of whether it may properly exercise federal subjectmatter jurisdiction. In consequence, GCS' response provides no grounds for 

disregarding the empirical likelihood that one or both of the mandatory abstention 

rules discussed above is applicable to prohibit such exercise. 

In consequence, I granted GCS an opp011unity to supplement its own response to the Order to 

Show Cause of June 1, 2015, likewise by not later than midnight on July 28, 2015, "with 

argument or evidence bearing on this comt's sua sponte determination of whether it may propei'ly 

exercise federal subject-matter jurisdiction over Reddick's claims notwithstanding the mandatory 

abstention rules codified at Sections 1332( d)( 4)(A) and 1332( d)( 4)(B) or the discretionary 

abstention rule codified at Section 1332(d)(3)." 

On July 28, 2015, both parties supplemented their prior responses. Reddick provides 

evidence that approximately 97.5% of the absent members of the putative class Reddick purports 

to represent had Oregon addresses as of the date their addresses were last known to GCS. While 

such evidence is insufficient to establish with certainty that a like percentage of absent putative 

class members were citizens of Oregon as of March 13, 2015, the date this action was removed, 

evidence of the putative class members' residence prior to the date ofremoval is neve1theless 

material to the relevant dete1mination of the putative class members' citizenship at the time of 

removal. See lvfondragon v. Capital One Auto Fin., 736 F.3d 880, 885-886 (9th Cir. 2013). 

GCS provides no evidence to the contrary. Instead, GCS proffers largely inapposite 

evidence regarding the financial hardships it is experiencing, its effo11s to cure the violations it is 

alleged to have committed, its eff011s to hire employees who would otherwise have experienced 

difficulty in finding work, and, finally, its lack of resources sufficient to pe1mit it to contact all 

absent putative class members to determine their place of citizenship as of March 13, 2015. 

Page 5 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 3:15-cv-00425-PK Document 30 Filed 07/30/15 Page 5 of 7
In the absence of evidence to rebut Reddick's proffered evidence or to suggest that any 

significant proportion of the absent putative class members had citizenship other than Oregon 

citizenship as of March 13, 2015, I find on the basis ofReddick's proffered evidence that in 

excess of two-thirds of the absent putative class members were citizens of Oregon as of the date 

this action was removed to federal court. Moreover, it is undisputed that GCS is an Oregon 

limited liability company doing business in Oregon, and that the non-payment of wages fonning 

the basis for Reddick's claims took place in Oregon, where all putative class members were at all 

material times employed. Finally, I note that Reddick has asserted, without any apparent 

underlying evidentiary basis, that no class action similar to the current putative class action has 

been filed against GCS in the last three years; GCS offers no evidence to the contrary of 

Reddick's assertion. On the basis of these findings, it is clear that (assuming arguendo that GCS 

has established or could establish a prima facie case for original jurisdiction under CAF A) this 

court is required to decline to exercise CAF A jurisdiction over Reddick's claims pursuant to the 

"home-state controversy" abstention rule codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B) (and would likely 

be similarly bmTed from exercising CAFAjurisdiction pursuant to the "local controversy" 

abstention rule codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A)). 

For the foregoing reasons, this comt may properly either dismiss Reddick's claims sua 

sponte without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and deny Reddick's motion for 

remand as moot or, altematively, construe Reddick's evidentimy proffer in response to this 

cou1t's Order to Show Cause as sufficient to satisfy Reddick's burden to establish the 

applicability of one or more of the CAFA abstention rules and on that basis grant Reddick's 

motion for remand. In the interests of justice and judicial efficiency, I recommend the latter 

Page 6 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 3:15-cv-00425-PK Document 30 Filed 07/30/15 Page 6 of 7
approach: that the court grant Reddick's motion ( #7) for remand and remand this action to state 

cou1t where it may proceed without further delay. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set foith above, Reddick's motion (#7) for remand should be granted, and 

this action should be remanded to the Multnomah County Circuit Comt where it was originally 

filed. 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

The Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if any, 

are due fomteen (14) days from service of the Findings and Recommendation. Ifno objections 

are filed, then the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement on that date. 

If objections are filed, then a response is due fou1teen (14) days after being served with a 

copy of the objections. When the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings 

and Recommendation will go under advisement. 

Dated this 30th day of July, 2015. 

Page 7 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 3:15-cv-00425-PK Document 30 Filed 07/30/15 Page 7 of 7