Maria Serrano v. Pacific Coast Feather Cushion Co., 2:17-cv-04414

Plaintiff Maria Serrano filed a putative California wage-and-hour class action in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging missed/untimely meal periods, missed/untimely rest periods, failure to pay wages on separation, inaccurate wage statements, and UCL violations.
The putative class covers non-exempt employees of Defendant Pacific Coast Feather entities in California for the four years before filing; a subclass covers those who separated employment within three years.
Defendants removed under both traditional diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)) and CAFA (28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)), asserting diversity and that the class-wide amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.
Plaintiff moved to remand, challenging (1) whether Serrano’s individual claims exceed $75,000 and (2) whether the aggregate class claims exceed $5,000,000.
Defendants’ individual-amount theory relied heavily on projected attorney’s fees; their CAFA theory assumed a 100% violation rate for meal/rest break claims to reach the $5M threshold.
The district court found Defendants’ evidence and assumptions (especially the 100% violation rate and speculative attorney-fee projection) insufficient to meet the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard and remanded the case to state court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Serrano’s individual claims meet the $75,000 jurisdictional amount	Serrano disputes that her individual recovery will exceed $75,000	Defendants claim plaintiff could recover $25,512 in substantive damages plus $77,413–$195,000 in attorney’s fees, pushing total over $75,000	Court: Defendants failed to prove amount in controversy by a preponderance; their attorney-fee estimate was speculative and insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction
Whether aggregate class claims meet CAFA’s $5,000,000 threshold	Serrano contends Defendants haven’t shown the class-wide amount exceeds $5M	Defendants aggregate subtotals to $5,278,624.90 by assuming a 100% violation rate for meal/rest break and other claims	Court: 100% violation rate not grounded in evidence; defendants did not prove by a preponderance that aggregate amount exceeds $5M; CAFA jurisdiction not established

Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2015) (defendant bears burden to prove amount in controversy by a preponderance; cautions against speculative 100% violation rate)
Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398 (9th Cir. 1996) (removing defendant bears burden to prove jurisdictional amount where complaint is silent)
Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373 (9th Cir. 1997) (district court may require summary-judgment-type evidence relevant to amount in controversy)
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (strong presumption against removal in traditional diversity cases; removal strictly construed)
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (2014) (clarifies procedures for a defendant’s notice of removal under CAFA and burden allocation)
Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326 (5th Cir. 1995) (discusses use of summary-judgment-type evidence to establish amount in controversy)