Leon v. Gordon Trucking, Inc.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179055
C.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiff Shawn Leon filed a putative statewide wage-and-hour class action in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging multiple California Labor Code claims and a UCL claim; an earlier FLSA claim was dropped in an amended complaint.
- Gordon Trucking first removed the case to federal court on federal-question grounds based on the original FLSA claim; after Leon dismissed the FLSA claim the district court remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- In response to the court’s order to show cause after remand, Gordon Trucking argued CAFA jurisdiction and submitted a damages "risk assessment" and later declared its corporate citizenship.
- Sixty-two days after the remand, Gordon Trucking filed a second notice of removal relying on CAFA (alleging minimal diversity and >$5,000,000 in controversy); Leon moved to remand again and sought fees.
- The district court addressed (1) whether §1447(d) bars a successive removal when the remand order addressed the same grounds, (2) whether Gordon Trucking offered new grounds, (3) whether the amount-in-controversy requirement was proven, and (4) whether fees were warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court can entertain Gordon Trucking’s second removal after a prior remand | Second removal is barred because it raises the same CAFA grounds already considered and rejected by the court | Successive removal is permitted when defendant asserts CAFA jurisdiction and supplies evidence of citizenship/amount in controversy | Successive removal barred under §1447(d); remand order immunizes reconsideration where grounds are not "new and different" |
| Whether Gordon Trucking presented "new and different" grounds justifying a second removal | Gordon Trucking had all evidence earlier and the second removal merely supplies what should have been shown before | Gordon Trucking contended later-submitted evidence (principal place of business) justified re-removal | No new grounds: citizenship/principal place of business was known to defendant and evidence was available earlier; thus removal was improper |
| Whether Gordon Trucking proved CAFA’s amount-in-controversy (> $5,000,000) by a preponderance | Leon argued the risk assessment is conclusory, disavowed by counsel, and insufficient | Gordon Trucking relied on plaintiff’s counsel’s risk assessment/email indicating > $20M potential liability | Amount-in-controversy not proven: the single-page, conclusory risk assessment (which plaintiff disavowed as inflated) was insufficient to meet the defendant’s burden |
| Whether Leon is entitled to attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) | Fees warranted because second removal was meritless and interfered with plaintiff’s control of his complaint | Removal arguments were close enough to be objectively reasonable | Fees denied: removal arguments were not objectively unreasonable such that fees should be imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (strong presumption against removal; proponent bears burden)
- Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 837 F.2d 413 (9th Cir. 1988) (once remand order certified, district court divested of jurisdiction to reconsider)
- Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 547 U.S. 633 (U.S. 2006) (§1447(d) bars review of remand orders issued under §1447(c))
- Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2002) (post-removal submissions may be treated as amendments to notice of removal)
- Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) (proponent of federal jurisdiction bears burden under CAFA)
- Rodriguez v. AT & T Mobility Servs. LLC, 728 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2013) (preponderance standard for amount-in-controversy under CAFA)
- Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345 (U.S. 2013) (plaintiff cannot bind absent class to avoid CAFA jurisdiction)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (U.S. 2014) (notice of removal needs only a plausible allegation of amount in controversy, but evidentiary proof required if contested)