Alexander Garcia v. ABM General Services, Inc.
2:24-cv-08713
| C.D. Cal. | Mar 11, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Alexander Garcia alleged wage and hour violations during his employment with ABM General Services, Inc. and ABM Industries, Inc. from 2021 to July 25, 2024.
- Garcia asserted that ABM failed to pay for all hours worked, including overtime, and did not provide required meal and rest breaks or accurate wage statements.
- Garcia filed suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court with eight causes of action based solely on California law.
- Defendants removed the action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), arguing the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million.
- Garcia moved to remand the case to state court, challenging whether the amount in controversy requirement was met.
- The court evaluated whether ABM’s assumptions regarding violation rates were sufficiently supported to meet federal jurisdictional thresholds under CAFA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CAFA's $5M amount in controversy was satisfied | ABM's calculations were based on unsupported and arbitrary violation rates | ABM claimed a 100% (or 20%) violation rate for certain claims, yielding >$5M | ABM’s violation rate assumptions were unsupported, so jurisdiction was not met |
| Whether ABM's assumptions were sufficiently supported | No facts or evidence supported the rates used | Company policies led to pervasive violations; estimates were reasonable | ABM’s rates were not reasonably founded in the complaint’s allegations |
| Treatment of attorneys' fees in amount in controversy | Unfounded calculation due to unsupported base claims | 25% of underlying claims was reasonable | Attorneys' fees calculation unsupported since underlying claims failed |
| Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees for remand | Sought fees for wrongful removal | Removal had reasonable basis | Court denied attorney’s fees; removal was not objectively unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2014) (defendant must plausibly allege amount in controversy for CAFA removal; evidence required if contested)
- Richardson v. United States, 943 F.2d 1107 (9th Cir. 1991) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2015) (unreasonable, unsupported assumptions do not suffice for CAFA jurisdiction)
- Jauregui v. Roadrunner Transp. Servs., Inc., 28 F.4th 989 (9th Cir. 2022) (defendant must show amount in controversy by preponderance of evidence; court may reject unreasonable assumptions)