Hernandez v. Aramark Food and Support Services Group, Inc., 5:20-cv-03633

Background

Hernandez sued Aramark in Santa Clara County Superior Court alleging eight California wage-and-hour and UCL claims (minimum wage, unpaid overtime, missed meal/rest breaks, wage statement/receipt theories, waiting-time penalties, expense reimbursement, UCL).
Complaint alleges Hernandez worked as an hourly nonexempt employee from April 2015 until she was fired (termination date not specified).
Aramark removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds; Hernandez moved to remand contesting (1) complete diversity and (2) amount in controversy.
Aramark submitted declarations showing its corporate "nerve center" (headquarters/executive officers) is in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and that it is incorporated in Delaware. Hernandez did not meaningfully contest that evidence.
Aramark’s damages estimate (~$60,464) plus projected attorneys’ fees satisfied the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold; the court also found that even using Hernandez’s lower damage estimate (~$47,423) a modest projection of future attorney fees (~$18,600) would push the amount in controversy over $75,000.
Court denied remand: complete diversity existed and the amount in controversy was met. The court noted a 30‑day removal timing defect (removal filed on day 32) but treated it as waived because Hernandez did not raise it.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Complete diversity (corporate citizenship)	Aramark is a California citizen under the "place of operations" test; thus no complete diversity.	Aramark is a citizen of Delaware (incorporation) and Pennsylvania (principal place of business / "nerve center" at Philadelphia HQ); provided affidavits of executives/officers.	Court applied Hertz nerve‑center test, accepted Aramark’s evidence, found citizenship is Delaware and Pennsylvania; complete diversity satisfied.
Amount in controversy (>$75,000)	Hernandez’s settlement calculation yields ~$47,423 and current attorney fees ~$8,978; future fees are speculative and should not be counted.	Removal estimate calculates ~$60,464 in damages (including unpaid overtime and expense reimbursement) and reasonably projects future attorney fees; even using Hernandez’s lower damages, modest future fees (~$18,600) satisfy threshold.	Court found defendant met its burden by a preponderance of the evidence: either defendant’s damage estimate alone plus fees, or plaintiff’s lower estimate plus reasonable future fees, exceeds $75,000.
Removal timeliness (30‑day rule)	Not raised in remand motion (but complaint served April 30; removal filed June 1 = 32 days).	Timing is a procedural defect that may be waived if not asserted.	Court noted removal was untimely but plaintiff waived the defect by failing to object; court cannot remand sua sponte on procedural defects.

Key Cases Cited

Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010) (corporate "principal place of business" = nerve center where officers direct, control, and coordinate).
Fritsch v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., LLC, 899 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2018) (future attorneys’ fees recoverable by statute count toward amount in controversy).
Ibarra v. Manheim Investments, Inc., 775 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2015) (complaint controls amount-in-controversy when plaintiff specifies sum; otherwise defendant must prove by preponderance).
Urbino v. Orkin Servs. of Cal., Inc., 726 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2013) (when complaint is ambiguous on amount, defendant bears burden to establish jurisdictional amount).
St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938) (plaintiff’s good-faith claim governs amount in controversy when clearly pleaded).
Carijano v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 643 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussion of corporate citizenship and headquarters as principal place of business).
Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 888 F.3d 413 (9th Cir. 2018) (diversity jurisdiction prerequisites).
Gonzales v. CarMax Auto Superstores, LLC, 840 F.3d 644 (9th Cir. 2016) (removal standards).
Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2002) (settlement demands can be relevant evidence of amount in controversy).
Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2005) (courts may consider summary-judgment-type evidence relevant to amount in controversy).
Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Prods., Inc., 40 Cal.4th 1094 (2007) (limits on statute of limitations period applied in wage cases).
Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (2012) (meal and rest break premium remedies).