Carlos Castellon v. Penn Ridge Transportation, Inc
5:17-cv-00149
C.D. Cal.Apr 10, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Carlos Castellon filed a wage-and-hour class action in state court against Penn-Ridge Transportation, Inc.; defendant removed the case to federal court for the third time under CAFA.
- Defendant asserted CAFA jurisdiction based on alleged class size, minimal diversity, and an amount in controversy exceeding $5 million.
- Castellon moved to remand, arguing the third notice of removal was untimely and that no new, relevant circumstances justified a successive removal.
- The court examined successive-removal doctrine: a later removal is permitted only when subsequent pleadings or events reveal a new ground for removal.
- The court found Defendant did not identify any relevant change in circumstances or justify waiting to remove, and that record information likely showed the $5 million threshold was ascertainable earlier.
- Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) was denied because Defendant’s removal was not objectively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a third, successive removal was permissible | Third removal untimely and improper because no new, relevant circumstances justified removing again | Removal under CAFA permitted; federal jurisdiction appropriate | Court: successive removal not justified — Defendant failed to identify relevant change |
| Whether the third notice of removal was timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) | Removability (amount in controversy) was ascertainable more than 30 days before removal; defendant waited for strategic reasons | Removal within CAFA timing rules and permissible | Court: persuaded defendant could have ascertained removability earlier; timeliness problematic (court need not finally decide) |
| Whether remand should include award of attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) | Fees requested because removal was improper and prejudiced state court jurisdiction | Opposes fees; removal had a reasonable basis | Court: denies fees — removal was not objectively unreasonable |
| Whether CAFA’s facilitation of federal adjudication overrides state comity concerns | Implied: CAFA doesn’t excuse repeated removals without new grounds | CAFA supports federal jurisdiction for qualifying class actions | Court: CAFA does not relieve defendant of burden to show proper timing and new grounds for successive removal |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts have limited jurisdiction and party asserting jurisdiction bears burden)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (2014) (CAFA’s purpose to facilitate federal adjudication of certain class actions)
- United States v. Ceja-Prado, 333 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (courts must jealously guard their jurisdiction)
- Reyes v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 781 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2015) (successive removal allowed only upon relevant change of circumstances)
- In re La Providencia Dev. Corp., 406 F.2d 251 (1st Cir. 1969) (removal can prejudice state court jurisdiction; courts wary of repeated removals)
- Harris v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (courts should guard against premature and protective removals)
- Roth v. CHA Hollywood Med. Ctr., L.P., 720 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2013) (defendant may not ignore documents that show removability and wait to remove strategically)
- Kuxhausen v. BMW Fin. Servs. NA LLC, 707 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2013) (defendant must apply reasonable intelligence in ascertaining removability)
- Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) (attorney’s fees under § 1447(c) awarded only when removal lacked an objectively reasonable basis)