2:20-cv-06782
C.D. Cal.Sep 25, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Delvin Hines filed a putative California wage-and-hour class action against Constellis Integrated Risk Management Services, Centerra Services International, Centerra Group LLC, and Michael Chandless.
- Defendants removed under CAFA; the district court ordered Defendants to show cause why the case should not be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Defendants supplemented the record with payroll/CBA data and recalculated the amount in controversy to approximately $8.6 million.
- The court found Defendants met their burden on the CAFA amount-in-controversy and denied Plaintiff’s motion to remand.
- The court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss most causes of action for failure to plead plausible facts, but dismissed with leave to amend; it also dismissed claims against individual defendant Chandless for insufficient facts of managing-agent liability.
- The court denied the request to strike Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees demand and gave Plaintiff 14 days to file an amended complaint; the scheduling conference was vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAFA amount in controversy / Remand | Amount not shown; removal deficient without evidentiary support | Removal plausible; later submitted payroll/CBA data showing aggregate > $5M | Denied remand; Defendants proved amount-in-controversy by preponderance |
| Overtime (Cal. Lab. Code § 510 / § 514) | Overtime based on inaccurate tracking and rounding; CBAs don’t address tracking | Plaintiff is covered by valid CBAs that meet §514 exemption (premium rates and 30%+ min) | Overtime claim preempted by §514 as pleaded; dismissed with leave to amend |
| Meal periods (Cal. Lab. Code § 512) | CBA invalidly waives meal rights and fails to allow revocation of on-duty meal | Plaintiff is a registered security officer covered by CBAs that expressly provide meal periods and arbitration, invoking §512(e)/(f)(3) exemption | Meal-period claim preempted by §512(e) as pleaded; dismissed with leave to amend |
| Minimum wage | Defendants failed to pay for all minutes worked due to rounding; alleges underpayment generally | Plaintiff’s allegations lack factual specificity (no exemplar week or rate) | Minimum wage claim dismissed for failure to plead factual detail; leave to amend |
| Rest breaks | On occasion missed rest periods | Allegations are generalized and lack dates or specific workweeks | Rest-break claim dismissed for lack of specificity; leave to amend |
| Wage statements (Cal. Lab. Code § 226) | Wage statements did not accurately list hours, rates, gross/net pay | Complaint alleges underpayment but not that statements themselves were inaccurate | Claim dismissed as conclusory; leave to amend |
| Waiting time penalties (Cal. Lab. Code § 203) | Plaintiff seeks waiting-time penalties | Plaintiff alleges he remains employed, not terminated or resigned | Claim dismissed because penalty applies only after termination; leave to amend |
| Joint-employer allegations | Defendants acted collectively as joint employers | Allegations are legal conclusions without factual support about control | Joint-employer theory dismissed for insufficient factual allegations; leave to amend |
| Individual liability (Michael Chandless) | Chandless exercised control over wages/hours/conditions | Complaint lacks facts showing Chandless was a managing agent with substantial independent authority | Claims against Chandless dismissed for failure to plead managing-agent facts; leave to amend |
| Motion to strike attorneys' fees request | Fees on §226.7 claim not available under Kirby | Plaintiff may seek fees under CCP §1021.5; striking premature | Motion to strike denied at pleading stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts have limited subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2014) (removal notice need only allege plausibly the amount in controversy)
- Fritsch v. Swift Transp. Co., 899 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2018) (defendant must prove amount in controversy by preponderance when challenged)
- Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2015) (defendant cannot rely on speculation; court may consider summary-judgment-type evidence)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must meet the plausibility standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (courts need not accept legal conclusions as true)
- White v. Ultramar, Inc., 21 Cal.4th 563 (1999) (definition and standard for "managing agent" liability)
- Araquistain v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 229 Cal. App. 4th 227 (2014) (a CBA can "expressly provide for meal periods" and satisfy §512(e) exemption)
- Kirby v. Immoos Fire Prot., Inc., 53 Cal.4th 1244 (2012) (limitations on fee awards under certain Labor Code claims)
- Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2005) (distinguishing applicability of statutory exemptions to different employee classes)