Clayton Salter v. Quality Carriers, Inc., 974 F.3d 959

Clayton Salter filed a putative California class action alleging Quality misclassified truck drivers as independent contractors and thus violated state wage-and-hour laws (meal/rest breaks, overtime, minimum wage, reimbursement, itemized statements, unfair business practices).
Quality removed under CAFA, asserting the amount in controversy exceeded $5,000,000; Salter moved to remand to state court.
Quality submitted a declaration from its CIO, Cliff Dixon, reporting ~118 contractors tied to California terminals, over $11.5 million deducted for fuel (and over $14 million in total deductions) during the limitations period, and that ~64% of reported miles were driven in California.
The district court granted remand, finding Dixon’s declaration conclusory and insufficient because it lacked attached business records or explicit attestations of record review; the court treated Salter’s challenge as a factual attack needing summary-judgment–level proof.
The Ninth Circuit vacated the remand: because Salter mounted only a facial challenge and did not dispute Quality’s factual assertions, Quality’s plausible jurisdictional allegations (supported by Dixon’s declaration) were sufficient under Dart and related Ninth Circuit precedent; the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Quality met CAFA amount-in-controversy when removal was supported only by Dixon’s declaration and plaintiff mounted a facial challenge	Salter: removing party must supply competent proof (documents/originals) like summary-judgment–level evidence; Dixon’s declaration is conclusory and inadmissible without business records	Quality: notice and supporting declaration need only supply plausible allegations and reasonable assumptions; evidentiary submissions not required for a facial challenge under Dart/Arias	Court held Salter mounted a facial attack; defendant’s plausible allegations via Dixon’s declaration sufficed; remand vacated and case remanded

Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (a removing defendant need not include evidentiary submissions in the notice; plaintiff may contest and the court then considers proof)
Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott, 936 F.3d 920 (a removing defendant’s allegations need only be plausible; reasonable assumptions may support amount-in-controversy)
Ibarra v. Manheim Inv., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193 (when amount-in-controversy is challenged, consider real evidence and reasonable assumptions under preponderance standard)
Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117 (distinguishes facial versus factual attacks; factual attacks require competent proof akin to summary-judgment standard)
Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 (removing defendant bears burden to establish federal jurisdiction)
Ehrman v. Cox Commc’ns, Inc., 932 F.3d 1223 (when plaintiff raises a facial challenge, defendant need not present evidentiary support for CAFA amount-in-controversy)