Bryant v. NCR Corp.
284 F. Supp. 3d 1147
S.D. Cal.2018Background
- Plaintiff John Bryant, a former hourly, non-exempt customer engineer, sued NCR in San Diego Superior Court on behalf of a putative California class alleging wage-and-hour and related claims (seven causes of action) covering the four years before filing through the present.
- Proposed class: all hourly, non-exempt customer engineers employed in California from November 13, 2013 to present; plaintiff alleged policies causing missed meal/rest breaks, unpaid wages, late payments, inaccurate wage statements, and wrongful termination.
- NCR removed under CAFA and general diversity jurisdiction; removal contested by Bryant, who moved to remand arguing NCR failed to prove the CAFA $5,000,000 amount-in-controversy and that his individual claims did not exceed $75,000.
- NCR supported removal with HR declarations (average hourly wage ~ $22.44, ~542 current employees, ~74,420 total workweeks) and calculated an amount-in-controversy > $11 million (and > $14 million including a 25% fee multiplier).
- Bryant objected to foundational sufficiency of the HR declaration, the assumed violation rates for meal/rest claims, alleged class-size inflation (citing overlap with a prior settlement class), and the attorneys’ fees benchmark.
- The district court evaluated whether NCR proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $5,000,000 and denied remand, concluding NCR met its burden even under conservative assumptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CAFA $5,000,000 amount-in-controversy satisfied | Bryant: NCR failed to establish the amount by a preponderance; HR declaration lacks foundational support; class size inflated; assumed violation rates unsupported | NCR: Declaration from HR and payroll data show average wages, class size, and workweeks; used reasonable assumptions for violation rates and computed > $11M (>$14M with fees) | Amount-in-controversy satisfied by preponderance; remand denied |
| Admissibility/adequacy of HR declaration evidence | Bryant: NCR must produce underlying business records supporting declarant's assertions | NCR: Declarations based on job responsibilities and review of personnel/payroll systems suffice at this early stage | Declarations were an adequate foundation for amount-in-controversy showing |
| Reasonableness of assumed meal/rest violation rates | Bryant: NCR improperly assumed high violation rates without evidentiary support | NCR: Some assumptions are appropriate; complaint alleges a policy/practice but not frequency, so conservative rates (60% meal, 30% rest) are reasonable | Court found NCR’s assumed rates reasonable given complaint’s indeterminate allegations |
| Effect of prior class settlement on class size/workweeks | Bryant: Prior De Leon settlement likely reduced current class size (possibly by ~25%) | NCR: Even a 25% reduction would leave the amount-in-controversy above $5M | Even reducing NCR’s estimate by 25% would not change outcome; CAFA threshold still met |
Key Cases Cited
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (2014) (removal under CAFA requires only a plausible allegation of amount in controversy unless challenged)
- Ibarra v. Manheim Investments, Inc., 775 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2015) (CAFA jurisdiction construed expansively)
- Washington v. Chimei Innolux Corp., 659 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2011) (burden of establishing removal jurisdiction on removing party)
- Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) (removing defendant bears burden of proving jurisdictional facts)
- Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, 728 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2013) (when amount in controversy is challenged, court resolves by preponderance)
- Rea v. Michaels Stores Inc., 742 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 2014) (defendant must show that potential damages could exceed jurisdictional amount)
- Lewis v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 627 F.3d 395 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing standard for amount-in-controversy showing)