Garza v. Brinderson Constructors, Inc.
178 F. Supp. 3d 906
N.D. Cal.2016Background
- Garza filed a putative California wage-and-hour class action in Monterey County Superior Court alleging missed meal/rest breaks, unpaid overtime/minimum wages, unreimbursed business expenses, waiting-time penalties, and inaccurate wage statements.
- Defendants Brinderson L.P. and Brinderson Constructors removed under CAFA asserting >100 class members, amount-in-controversy > $5,000,000, and diversity of citizenship; plaintiff moved to remand.
- Plaintiff amended to remove Brinderson Constructors, correct defendant names, and the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) did not allege an amount in controversy; SAC originally acknowledged removal jurisdiction but made no factual admission about amount.
- Defendants produced payroll and personnel data and offered three amount-in-controversy calculations (weekly meal/rest violations, 100% shift violations, and waiting-time penalties); plaintiff contested only the unsupported 100% assumption.
- Defendants attempted to show diversity by identifying one putative class member with Washington documents (W-4s, driver’s license, vehicle registration); plaintiff argued class members were California employees and sought remand under the CAFA home-state exception.
- Court found defendants met the amount-in-controversy (via weekly-violation and waiting-time calculations), but failed to prove diversity by a preponderance and, alternatively, permitted amendment and remand under the CAFA home-state exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amount-in-controversy (CAFA $5M threshold) | Brga: Defs fail to prove >$5M; their violation-rate assumptions are unsupported | Brinderson: Payroll data and three calculations show >$5M (weekly violations, 100% shifts, waiting-time penalties) | Held: Defs met preponderance for amount via weekly-violation and waiting-time calculations; 100% shift assumption rejected |
| Diversity of citizenship (CAFA) | Garza: Class members are California citizens/employees; defendants failed to prove any non-California citizen | Brinderson: At least one putative class member domiciled in Washington per personnel documents | Held: Defs failed to prove by preponderance that the unnamed employee is domiciled in Washington; diversity not established |
| Home-state exception to CAFA (2/3 of class + primary defendants citizens of forum state) | Garza: Most or all class members are California citizens; court should decline jurisdiction | Brinderson: Plaintiff waived exception by delay; plaintiff hasn’t proved two-thirds are CA citizens | Held: Motion timely; plaintiff not yet proven two-thirds, but court grants leave to amend to allege class limited to California citizens and remands on that basis |
| Waiver (timeliness of remand motion) | Garza: Delay justified by case developments; motion filed early in proceedings | Brinderson: 173-day delay unreasonable and amounts to waiver of CAFA exceptions | Held: Delay not unreasonable (35 days after SAC; early stage), so no waiver |
Key Cases Cited
- Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373 (9th Cir.) (jurisdictional defects cannot be avoided by waiver)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (U.S. 2014) (courts may consider evidence submitted after removal in assessing amount in controversy under CAFA)
- Ibarra v. Manheim Investments, Inc., 775 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir.) (defendant must support amount-in-controversy assumptions with reasonable evidence; pattern-and-practice allegations do not prove universal violations)
- Rodriguez v. AT & T Mobility Servs. LLC, 728 F.3d 975 (9th Cir.) (amount-in-controversy proven by preponderance of evidence)
- Mondragon v. Capital One Auto Fin., 736 F.3d 880 (9th Cir.) (class definitions alone are generally insufficient to establish citizenship for CAFA exceptions)
- Benko v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp., 789 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir.) (plaintiffs may be allowed to amend complaint after removal to clarify jurisdictional facts)