Heather Parker v. Lendmark Financial Services, LLC
5:24-cv-01592
C.D. Cal.Oct 16, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Heather Parker filed a class action in California state court alleging eight wage and hour violations against Lendmark Financial Services, LLC (“Lendmark”).
- The complaint alleges violations including missed meal and rest breaks, unpaid overtime and minimum wages, inaccurate wage statements, failure to provide personnel records, waiting time penalties, and unfair competition.
- Lendmark removed the case to federal court, invoking the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) and alleging that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million.
- Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing Lendmark failed to meet its burden under CAFA to show the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold.
- Lendmark supported its removal with two declarations estimating violation rates and damages, but relied heavily on assumptions rather than direct evidence.
- The court decided the remand motion on the papers and ruled that Lendmark failed to demonstrate the requisite amount in controversy; the case was remanded to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Putative Class Size | Not disputed; class >100 | Class size exceeds threshold | Satisfied; class >100 members |
| Minimal Diversity | Not disputed; parties diverse | Parties are citizens of different states | Satisfied; minimal diversity exists |
| Amount in Controversy | Lendmark's estimates are speculative, based on unsupported violation rates | Assumes high violation rates based on language like "often"; relies on averages and total workweeks | Not satisfied; assumptions unreasonable and unsupported |
| Attorney’s Fees | Defendant did not address | Omitted from calculation, claimed conservative approach | Not included in calculation; remand not based on this factor |
Key Cases Cited
- Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2015) (defendant must show amount in controversy by preponderance using reasonable assumptions and evidence)
- Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, 728 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2013) (removing defendant’s burden under CAFA for amount in controversy)
- Brinkley v. Monterey Fin. Servs., Inc., 873 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2017) (CAFA minimum class size and diversity requirements)
- Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010) (principal place of business determination for diversity)
- Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2007) (defendant must provide evidence if amount in controversy unclear from complaint)
- Greene v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 965 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2020) (no anti-removal presumption under CAFA)