Cocroft v. EquipmentShare.com Inc., 3:24-cv-00645

Plaintiff Kevin Cocroft, a former hourly employee, filed a wage-and-hour class action in California state court against EquipmentShare, alleging numerous Labor Code and IWC Wage Order violations.
Defendant removed the case to federal court, asserting jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), citing minimal diversity, a class of over 100, and an amount in controversy exceeding $5 million.
Plaintiff filed a motion to remand, contesting only whether defendant plausibly alleged the CAFA $5 million amount in controversy requirement.
EquipmentShare supported its removal with a detailed declaration estimating damages, attorneys’ fees, and penalty calculations using timekeeping and payroll data.
The court considered the motion based solely on the written submissions, without oral argument.
The court analyzed whether defendant’s amount in controversy assumptions and violation rates, derived from the complaint's allegations and time records, were reasonable and sufficient to establish jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the removal notice sufficient without evidence?	Notice must provide evidence, not just allegations.	Only a plausible allegation is required at notice stage; evidence comes after challenge.	Defendant's removal notice sufficient; did not need evidence at notice.
Did the defendant plausibly establish the CAFA amount in controversy?	Calculations overstate violations, use unreasonable rates, and unsupported assumptions.	Calculations are based on timekeeping data, industry statistics, and language in complaint.	Defendant’s evidence and assumptions are reasonable; amount in controversy exceeds $5M.
Violation rates (meal/rest breaks, overtime)	Rates unreasonably high given “from time to time” allegations; double-counting.	Complaint alleges “uniform policy” and systematic conduct, justifying higher rates.	Court applies 75% for major claims; reduces calculation for double-counting; overall rates reasonable.
Attorneys’ fees estimation	Defendant’s use of 25% for fees is flawed, not always appropriate.	25% benchmark reasonable based on similar cases and plaintiff’s counsel’s practice.	25% fee benchmark accepted as reasonable for this stage.

Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (standard for plausible amount in controversy at removal)
Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (court’s obligation to ensure subject-matter jurisdiction)
Jauregui v. Roadrunner Transp. Servs., Inc., 28 F.4th 989 (CAFA should be interpreted expansively, reasonable estimates suffice)
Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193 (removing defendant must prove amount in controversy by preponderance if challenged)
Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Servs., 728 F.3d 975 (burden of proof on defendant after jurisdictional challenge)
City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (removal permitted only if federal jurisdiction exists)