Griselda Jauregui v. Roadrunner Transportation Services Inc.
2:21-cv-04657
C.D. Cal.Sep 8, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Griselda Jauregui, an hourly non-exempt employee (June 2014–Apr 2020), sued Roadrunner Transportation Services in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging wage-and-hour violations on behalf of a statewide class.
- Complaint asserts ten California-law causes of action (unpaid overtime, missed meal/rest premiums, unpaid minimum wages, late/untimely wages, defective wage statements, recordkeeping failures, unreimbursed expenses, UCL restitution) and seeks class relief covering the four years before filing.
- Roadrunner removed under CAFA, asserting diversity and that the amount in controversy exceeded $5,000,000, relying chiefly on a payroll declaration by its Senior Payroll Lead (Camisha Washington).
- Jauregui moved to remand, contesting the amount-in-controversy calculations as speculative and unsupported.
- The district court reviewed the parties’ evidence and calculations, rejected several of Roadrunner’s assumptions, accepted reasonable estimates for missed meal and rest breaks and a limited overtime figure, found total amount in controversy of $2,131,636.46, and remanded the case to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minimum-wage claim amount | Jauregui: defendant’s calculation is speculative and uses an unsupported average wage. | Roadrunner: one unpaid hour per workweek across class at avg $16.22 plus liquidated damages and penalties yields >$5M. | Rejected — Court found the $16.22 rate inappropriate for a minimum-wage claim and the $5.23M figure a gross over-calculation. |
| Overtime and missed-breaks overlap | Jauregui: statutory meal/rest premiums are remedies, not hours worked; should not be converted to overtime. | Roadrunner: missed breaks produced off-the-clock work and additional overtime exposure. | Accepted Jauregui’s position — Court declined to treat meal/rest premium hours as overtime; excluded Roadrunner’s $1.284M overtime-from-missed-breaks figure. |
| Meal and rest break damages (violation rate) | Jauregui: alleges pattern/practice; disputes specific numeric estimates. | Roadrunner: applied a 25% violation rate to payroll data to estimate meal/rest premium exposure. | Accepted — Court found a 25% violation rate reasonable given the complaint’s language and accepted the meal and rest break figures ($913,258.99 and $1,076,963.40). |
| Penalties and attorneys’ fees (waiting time, wage statements, late-payment, fees) | Jauregui: challenges Roadrunner’s pay-period math and speculative fee estimate. | Roadrunner: calculated large penalties and used a 25% benchmark for attorneys’ fees to reach CAFA threshold. | Rejected — Court found pay-period math and penalty calculations unreasonable or unsupported, and declined to include speculative attorneys’ fees without summary-judgment-type evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (removal statute strictly construed; defendant bears burden to establish removal).
- McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1936) (plaintiff contests jurisdictional facts; burden on defendant to establish by preponderance).
- Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) (defendant bears burden to establish CAFA jurisdictional facts).
- Serrano v. 180 Connect, Inc., 478 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2007) (CAFA does not alter burden rule).
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2014) (notice of removal must plausibly allege amount in controversy; when contested, evidence required).
- Fritsch v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., LLC, 899 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2018) (attorneys’ fees part of amount in controversy but defendant must prove fee estimate with evidence).
- Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2003) (conclusory amount assertions insufficient).
- Ibarra v. Manheim Inv., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2015) (defendant cannot rely on speculation; assumptions must be reasonable).
- Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott, 936 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2019) (assumptions may be used but must have reasonable grounding).
- Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Serv., Inc., 40 Cal. App. 5th 444 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (meal/rest premium under §226.7 is a statutory remedy and not wages for overtime purposes).