Case Name: Paul NOLL; Steven McClure; Mark Sutherland, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA LLC, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-23
Citations: 404 F. App'x 250
Docket Number: No. 10-56511
Parties: Paul NOLL; Steven McClure; Mark Sutherland, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA LLC, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and ZOUHARY, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 404
Pages: 250–252

Head Matter:
Paul NOLL; Steven McClure; Mark Sutherland, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA LLC, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-56511.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Nov. 3, 2010.
Filed Nov. 23, 2010.
John Glugoski, Esquire, Matthew Righetti, Righetti Law Firm, P.C., San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Andrew L. Alexis, Counsel, Jack Steven Sholkoff, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and ZOUHARY, District Judge.
The Honorable Jack Zouhary, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
In this case involving the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), Appellant Travel-Centers of America (TA) challenges the district court's grant of Appellee Paul Noll's (Noll) motion to remand Noll's class action suit to state court. We affirm.
The district court properly held that TA's notice of removal was untimely, as Noll's original complaint "revealfed] a basis for removal." Harris v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 694 (9th Cir. 2005). Noll's complaint alleged that TA misclassifíed salaried store employees as exempt managerial/exeeutive employees for overtime compensation. Despite sufficient notice of the putative class, TA failed to timely remove the action to federal court as required by CAFA. See id.
Because we hold that TA's notice of removal was untimely based on the original complaint's allegations, we need not and do not address TA's challenge to the district court's application of the revival exception to removal or the district court's alternative basis for remanding Noll's action to state court premised on TA's failure to demonstrate the requisite amount in controversy.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.