Alexis Gomez v. Rapid Pasadena Services, LLC, 2:21-cv-01053

Background

Six plaintiffs (drivers and dispatchers) brought a consolidated putative California wage-and-hour class action against Rapid entities (delivery contractors) and multiple Amazon entities, alleging meal/rest-break violations, unpaid wages/overtime/minimum wage, wage-statement and final-wage violations, unreimbursed business expenses, UCL claims, and PAGA penalties for conduct from Dec. 12, 2016 to Dec. 11, 2020.
Plaintiffs allege joint-employer control by Amazon: setting daily workloads, requiring check‑in at Amazon facilities, supplying tools/devices, and exercising hiring/training/discipline/supervision authority.
Amazon removed the consolidated state-court action under CAFA; plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing (1) CAFA’s $5 million amount-in-controversy threshold was not met and (2) CAFA’s home‑state and local‑controversy exceptions applied.
Defendants submitted calculations and declarations estimating classwide damages (including penalties and attorneys’ fees) exceeding $5 million; plaintiffs disputed the reasonableness of those calculations but provided no alternative damage evidence.
The court found defendants carried their burden by a preponderance that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million (accepting that plaintiffs alleged systemic/universal violations and that attorneys’ fees are includable) and rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that Amazon was not a “primary defendant” or that prior similar actions were absent.
The court denied the motion to remand: CAFA jurisdiction exists; neither the home‑state nor the local‑controversy exception applied; evidentiary objections were overruled and judicial notice of public complaints was granted.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Amount in controversy (CAFA $5M)	Plaintiffs: Defendants’ calculations assume universal classwide violations without evidence; amount speculative.	Defendants: Removal included plausible calculations with declarations; include penalties and attorneys’ fees; systemic allegations support classwide exposure.	Court: Held defendants met preponderance standard; complaint supports universal violations; attorneys’ fees included; amount > $5M.
Home‑state controversy exception (28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(4)(B))	Plaintiffs: Two‑thirds of class and primary defendants are Californians because Rapid defendants are CA citizens; Amazon not a primary defendant.	Defendants: Complaint alleges Amazon as joint employer with direct control; Amazon is directly liable and thus a primary defendant.	Court: Amazon is a primary defendant based on complaint’s allegations of direct control; exception does not apply.
Local‑controversy exception (28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(4)(A))	Plaintiffs: No similar class action in past 3 years involving Rapid employees delivering for Amazon; exception should apply.	Defendants: Multiple recent class actions against Amazon assert similar factual allegations; statute asks about actions against any defendant.	Court: Found similar prior actions against Amazon; requirement fails; local‑controversy exception does not apply.
Evidentiary/Judicial‑notice disputes	Plaintiffs objected to defendants’ declarations and some documents.	Defendants sought judicial notice of public complaints and submitted declarations supporting amount calculations.	Court: Overruled evidentiary objections; granted judicial notice of court filings and relied on defendants’ declarations for amount analysis.

Key Cases Cited

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts presumptively lack jurisdiction over state claims).
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (removing party bears burden to show proper removal; strict construction of removal statute).
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2014) (plausible allegation in notice of removal suffices unless contested; then evidence required).
Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, 728 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2013) (burden on removing party to establish CAFA jurisdiction).
Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2015) (when amount in controversy is contested, parties may submit evidence and court decides by preponderance).
Fritsch v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona, LLC, 899 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2018) (attorneys’ fees may be included in CAFA amount‑in‑controversy calculation).
Singh v. Am. Honda Fin. Corp., 925 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2019) (analysis of who counts as a “primary defendant” for CAFA exceptions).
Mondragon v. Capital One Auto Fin., 736 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2013) (burden of proving CAFA exceptions rests with party seeking remand).
Vodenichar v. Halcon Energy Properties, Inc., 733 F.3d 497 (3d Cir. 2013) (CAFA primary‑defendant inquiry focuses on directness and relative exposure).
Harris v. County of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2012) (courts may take judicial notice of public court records).