4:24-cv-06916
N.D. Cal.Jul 22, 2025Background
- Maria Elizabeth Bonezzi filed a class action in California state court on behalf of herself and similarly situated non-exempt hourly employees against Ulta Salon, alleging various wage and hour violations.
- Claims included unpaid wages for pre- and post-shift work, inaccurate wage statements, unpaid overtime and minimum wages, failure to provide meal/rest breaks, and unreimbursed business expenses.
- Plaintiff sought statutory penalties and damages based on allegedly systematic underpayment and class-wide wage violations.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), citing an amount in controversy exceeding $5 million.
- Bonezzi filed a motion to remand to state court, arguing that Defendants failed to satisfy their burden to establish federal jurisdiction.
- The primary dispute focused on whether Defendants' evidence and assumptions regarding the amount in controversy, particularly the waiting time penalty calculation, were sufficient and reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Evidence | Declaration was too vague and lacked specifics | Sworn declaration suffices; exact records not needed | Declaration is sufficient under CAFA |
| Reasonableness of Violation Rate | No basis for 100% rate; needs concrete evidence | Complaint allegations justify 100% or at least 10% | 10% violation rate assumption is reasonable |
| Calculation of Waiting Time Penalty | Lacked foundation, demanded sampling of records | Appropriately based on complaint allegations | Assumption and method are reasonable |
| Amount in Controversy (CAFA) | Not met due to above defects | Satisfied even with 10% violation rate | Defendants met threshold; no remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (CAFA removal notice need only plausibly allege amount in controversy; detailed evidence not required unless challenged)
- Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2015) (on challenge, both sides submit proof; court uses preponderance of evidence standard to determine amount in controversy)
- Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott, 936 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2019) (defendants may rely on complaint allegations to make reasonable assumptions supporting removal)
- Jauregui v. Roadrunner Transportation Servs., Inc., 28 F.4th 989 (9th Cir. 2022) (affirmed sufficiency of summary judgment-type evidence for amount in controversy under CAFA)