Blanca Argelia Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott
936 F.3d 920
| 9th Cir. | 2019Background
- Plaintiff Blanca Arias filed a putative California wage-and-hour class action against Residence Inn by Marriott, LLC and Marriott International alleging unpaid wages/overtime, missed rest breaks, and defective wage statements; she sought statutory penalties and attorneys’ fees.
- Marriott removed under CAFA, asserting minimal diversity, class size (≥100), and amount in controversy exceeding $5,000,000.
- Marriott supported removal with payroll/personnel data and calculated damages estimates using assumed violation rates; its most conservative estimate (excluding fees) exceeded $5.5 million.
- The district court sua sponte remanded, finding Marriott’s amount-in-controversy calculations speculative and excluding prospective attorneys’ fees.
- Marriott appealed by permission; the Ninth Circuit vacated the remand and remanded for the district court to allow both sides to present evidence and argument on the amount in controversy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court properly remanded sua sponte without allowing defendant to submit evidence | Arias argued removal was deficient and remand appropriate | Marriott argued notice plausibly alleged CAFA jurisdiction and it should have chance to support amount-in-controversy with evidence | Vacated: court must give defendant opportunity to submit proof when amount is questioned before remanding |
| Whether defendant may rely on assumed violation rates to estimate amount in controversy | Arias argued assumptions are speculative and unreliable | Marriott argued reasonable assumptions tied to complaint and payroll data are permitted | Held: reasonable, complaint‑tethered assumptions are allowed; they need not be proven at removal but must have a reasonable basis and can be tested on remand |
| Whether prospective attorneys’ fees may be included in amount in controversy | Arias argued future fees are too speculative to include | Marriott argued fee‑shifting statutes make future fees part of amount in controversy | Held: Fees recoverable by statute or contract must be included; defendant must prove fee amount by preponderance on remand |
| Whether post‑filing defenses or plaintiff stipulations defeat CAFA jurisdiction | Arias pointed to state‑court summary judgment defense and a statement that the action is not valued at $5M | Marriott argued jurisdiction assessed as of removal and putative class rep cannot bind absent class | Held: Post‑filing developments and pre‑certification stipulations do not defeat jurisdiction properly invoked at removal time |
Key Cases Cited
- Fritsch v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., LLC, 899 F.3d 785 (9th Cir.) (future attorneys’ fees under fee‑shifting statutes/contracts are included in amount in controversy)
- Ibarra v. Manheim Investments, Inc., 775 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir.) (removal notice need only plausibly allege amount in controversy and may rely on reasonable assumptions tied to complaint)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (2014) (no antiremoval presumption in CAFA; accept defendant’s plausible amount‑in‑controversy allegations unless contested)
- Lewis v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 627 F.3d 395 (9th Cir.) (amount in controversy measures total at stake, not defendant’s prospective liability; plaintiff’s silence can leave defendant’s showing sufficient)
- Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 568 U.S. 588 (2013) (pre‑certification plaintiff stipulations limiting recovery do not defeat CAFA jurisdiction because class representative cannot bind absent class)