Harp v. California Cemetery and Funeral Services, LLC
1:21-cv-01118
E.D. Cal.May 25, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Scott Harp sued California Cemetery and Funeral Services, LLC in Kern County for violations of California Labor Code §§ 226, 2699, 2751 and Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, including a representative PAGA claim.
- CCFS removed to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction; its notice initially referenced CAFA but, in opposition to remand, relied only on 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
- CCFS claimed the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 by attributing $70,000 in attorneys’ fees (plus $6,200 in penalties/damages) to Harp.
- Harp moved to remand, arguing CCFS cannot aggregate PAGA attorneys’ fees to a single plaintiff and requested fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
- The Court held Ninth Circuit precedent prohibits aggregating PAGA penalties or attorneys’ fees to a single plaintiff for § 1332 purposes, remanded the case, and awarded Harp $6,255 in attorneys’ fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CCFS may aggregate PAGA attorneys’ fees to a single plaintiff to meet the $75,000 amount-in-controversy threshold | Harp: Fees may not be aggregated; only pro rata share of fees for the named plaintiff counts | CCFS: California appellate decisions (Robinson, Starks) imply aggregation is appropriate because only one plaintiff can recover PAGA fees | Court: Followed Ninth Circuit (Urbino/Canela) — PAGA fees cannot be aggregated; CCFS failed to meet burden; remand granted |
| Whether removal was objectively reasonable and whether remand fees should be awarded under § 1447(c) | Harp: Removal lacked an objectively reasonable basis; fees requested for remand litigation | CCFS: Relied on Robinson and Starks and thus removal was reasonable | Court: Ninth Circuit precedent clearly foreclosed aggregation; removal not objectively reasonable; awarded $6,255 in attorneys’ fees (9 hours × $695/hr) |
Key Cases Cited
- Canela v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 971 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2020) (prohibits aggregation of PAGA attorneys’ fees for amount-in-controversy)
- Urbino v. Orkin Servs. of Cal., Inc., 726 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2013) (PAGA civil penalties cannot be attributed to a single plaintiff for jurisdictional aggregation)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2014) (notice of removal must plausibly allege amount in controversy; if contested, parties submit proof)
- Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) (complete diversity requirement)
- Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, 728 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2013) (defendant bears burden to establish amount in controversy when complaint silent)
- Ibarra v. Manheim Investments, Inc., 775 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2015) (court may consider summary-judgment-type evidence to resolve amount-in-controversy disputes)
- Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) (awarding fees under § 1447(c) only when removal lacked an objectively reasonable basis)