Dobbs v. Wood Group PSN, Inc.
201 F. Supp. 3d 1184
E.D. Cal.2016Background
- This is a wage-and-hour case arising from Dobbs's employment with The Wood Group PSN, Inc. in Kern County Superior Court (Complaint filed May 12, 2016) alleging six California Labor Code violations and Unfair Competition/Unfair Business Practices.
- Dobbs did not plead a damages amount in the complaint.
- Wood Group removed the case to federal court on June 16, 2016 based on CAFA, asserting the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.
- Dobbs moved to remand on June 23, 2016, arguing the removal notice failed to prove the CAFA amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The court held that CAFA jurisdiction rests on the defendant’s burden to prove the amount in controversy, and that the evidence here does not establish more than $5 million.
- Remand is granted and the related motion to dismiss is denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million under CAFA | Dobbs contends Wood Group failed to prove the amount in controversy meets the CAFA threshold | Wood Group asserts sufficient evidence shows more than $5 million in dispute | Remand granted; not proven |
| Whether a 100% violation rate is a reasonable assumption for the calculation | Dobbs argues a 100% rate is unreasonable given pattern-and-practice allegations | Wood Group argues extrapolation from admissions can rely on 100% rate in some contexts | Unreasonable; cannot rely on a universal violation rate under pattern-and-practice allegations |
| Whether the evidence submitted constitutes competent data for amount in controversy | Dobbs argues the evidence lacks statistical analysis and is indecipherable | Wood Group relies on payroll reports as supporting data | Insufficient competent evidence; remand appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) (preserves burden on proponent of jurisdiction; standards for CAFA remand)
- Ibarra v. Manheim Investments, Inc., 775 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2015) (requires reasonable, not speculative, calculations; extrapolations from admissible data)
- Mondragon v. Capital One Auto Fin., 736 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2013) (necessity of factual findings when facts are in dispute; preponderance standard for removal)
- LaCross v. Knight Transp. Inc., 775 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 2015) (extrapolation from representative samples permitted in pattern-and-practice cases)