N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M IC HAEL C HAVEZ, a s a n individual and on be ha l f of a ll othe rs sim ila rly situa te d, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. TIM E WAR

NER C AB LE ENTER

PR ISES LLC ; TIM E WA R

NER ENTER TAINM ENT C OM PANY, LP; TIM E WAR

NER C AB LE SHARED SER VIC ES, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-56017 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-05291-R GK-R Z
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia R . Ga ry Kla usne r, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 3, 2015 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, TR OTT, a

nd B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED OCT 02 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Pla intiff-Appe lla nt M ic h a e l C have z tim e ly a ppe a ls from

an orde r of the distric t c o urt gra

nting sum m ary judge m e nt in fa

v or of De fe nda

nts-Appe lle e s Tim e W arne r C a

ble LLC , Tim e W a

rne r Ente rta inm e nt C om

pa ny , and Tim e W arne r Share d Se rvic e s (c olle c tive l y , “ TW C ” ). In Ja nua ry 2011, C hav e z file d a

c la ss a c tion c om

p la int a ga inst TW C in C a lifornia sta te c ourt, a lle ging viola

tions of C a lifornia la bor la w. In M ay

2012, a fte r satisfy ing sta te a dm inistra

tive e xha ustion
re quire m e nts, C have z am e nde d his c om p la int to inc lude pe na ltie s unde r C a lifornia ’ s La

bor C o de Private Attorne y s Ge ne ra l Ac t of 2004 (“ PAGA” ), C a l. La b. C ode §§ 2699(a), 2699.3. TW C re m ove d to fe de ra l c ourt, whe re the distric t
c ourt found jurisdiction unde r the C la ss Ac tion Fa irne s s Ac t (“ C AFA” ) ba se d on the a dditional c la im s for PAGA pe na ltie s. TW C c a lc ulate d the re quire d $5,000,000 a

m ount in c ontrove rsy

by de te rm ining thenum

be r of a l le ge dly
a ggrie ve d e m

ploy e e s a nd the n de te rm ining thepe na l tie s tha t e a c h individual would be aw arde d for the PAGA c la im . In tota l , this a m ounte d to ove r $5.5 m illion, a nd the d istric t c o urt c onc lude d tha t TW C ha d sa

tisfie d its burde n

of proving the jurisdic tiona l am ount. On a ppe a l, a fte r the initia l brie fing in this c a se wa s c om ple te d, the pa

ne l orde re d supple m e nta l brie fing to de te rm ine whe the r fe de ra l jurisdic tion wa s prope r in light of inte

rve n i ng Ninth C irc uit pre c e de nt prohibiting the a ggre gation of 2PAGA pe na ltie s to sa tisfy fe de ra l jurisdic tiona l a

m ounts. S

e e Yoc upic i o v . PAE Grp., LLC, 795 F.3d 1057 (9th C ir. 2015) (PAGA c la im s c a nn ot be a ggre gate d with c la ss c la im s to sa

t isfy the jurisdic tiona l a

m ount re quire d unde r C AFA); Urbino v . Ork

in Se rv s. of C a l., Inc
. , 726 F.3d 1118 (9th C ir. 2013) (PAGA
re c o ve rie s sought on beha lf of non-pa rty a ggrie ve d e m

ploy e e s m a

y not be
a ggre g at e d to m e e t the $75,000 a m ount-in-c ontrove rsy

re quire m e nt for dive rsity
a c tions under 28 U.S.C . § 1332(a)); Baumann v . C hase Inv . Se rv

s. C orp. , 747 F.3d 1117 (9th C ir. 2014) (PAGA is not suffic ie ntly sim ila r to R ule 23 to e sta

blish the origina l jurisdic tion of a

fe de ra l c ourt unde r C AFA). In its supplem e nta l brie f, TW C c onc e de s tha

t Yoc u pic io and Baumann pre c lude the m e thod thedistric t c ourt
re lie d on to c a lc ulat e the jurisdic tiona l am ount, a nd thus pre c lude C AFA a s a ba sis for re m ova l jurisdic tion. W e a g re e tha t the distric t c ourt’ s finding of C AFA jurisdic tion wa s im

prope r in light of the se c a se s. Se e Yoc upic io , 795 F.3d a t 1062; Baumann , 747 F.3d a

t 1122. TW C argue s, howe ve r, tha t dive rsity jurisdic tion a lso e xists under 28 U.S.C
. § 1332(a ). Although TW C ra ise d the argum e nt tha t dive rsity jurisdic tion e xiste d in its Notic e of R e m ova l be fore the distric t c o urt, the distric t c ourt ne ve r re a c h e d this issue be c a

use it found tha

t jurisdic tion wa s prope r unde r C A FA. W e de c line to
re solve in the first insta

nc e the le ga l a

nd fa c tua l issue s pre se nte d by this a rgum e nt, 3inc l uding whe t he r the one -y e ar lim ita

tions pe riod ba

rs re m ova l. The re a lso
a ppe ars to be a que stion, not raise d by the pa rtie s , a s to whic h ve rsion of the
re m ova l sta

tute prope rly

gove rns this c a se , a

nd whe the r an

e quita ble tolling
e xc e ption e xiste d unde r the pre vious ve rsion. C ompare 2 8 U.S.C . § 1446(c )(1)
w ith form e r 28 U.S.C . § 1446(b) (2011); s e e also Fe de ra l C ourts Jurisdic tion a nd Ve nue C la

rific ation Ac t of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-63, § 105, 125 Sta t. 758, 762 (2011) (providing the

e ffe c t ive date of the c urre nt re m o va l sta tute ). W e the re fore va c ate the distric t c o urt’ s orde r granting sum m ary judgm e nt in favor of TW C , and re m a

nd to thedistric t c ourt to de te rm i ne whe the r dive rsity jurisdic tion is pre se nt. The pa rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts on a p pe a l. VAC ATED AND R

EM ANDED.

4