Mayra Quinones v. Atria Management Company, LLC
2:19-cv-03704
C.D. Cal.Jul 8, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Mayra Quinones filed a putative class action in Los Angeles County Superior Court and defendants Atria Management Company, LLC and Atria Senior Living, Inc. removed under CAFA.
- Plaintiff moved to remand the action to state court on June 14, 2019.
- Defendants opposed remand and submitted materials attempting to show the amount-in-controversy exceeded CAFA's $5,000,000 threshold.
- Plaintiff replied and challenged defendants’ evidence and assumptions regarding the amount in controversy.
- The Court considered the briefs under Rule 78 and Local Rule 7-15 and found the matter suitable for decision without oral argument.
- The Court also noted defendants failed to file a required proposed Statement of Decision under the Court’s Standing Order and Local Rule 7-12.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CAFA removal requirements (including $5M amount-in-controversy) are satisfied | Quinones argued defendants failed to carry their burden to show the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 | Atria argued CAFA applies and submitted calculations/assumptions showing damages exceed $5,000,000 | Remand granted: defendants did not meet their burden to establish amount in controversy; plaintiff need not introduce evidence unless defendant meets initial burden |
| Burden of proof for amount in controversy under CAFA | Quinones contended that Dart Cherokee and Ibarra require defendants to present evidence first and that defendants’ evidence was speculative | Atria contended its calculations satisfied the preponderance standard | Court applied Dart Cherokee and Ibarra: defendant bears burden; its evidence must be reasonable and supported; here it failed to do so |
| Effect of defendants’ procedural omissions (failure to file proposed Statement of Decision) | Quinones argued failure to file constitutes consent to granting the motion under Local Rule 7-12 | Atria did not file the required document | Court deemed omission as consent under Local Rule 7-12 and considered it in favor of remand |
| Whether an anti-removal presumption applies in CAFA cases | Quinones argued plaintiff need not submit contrary evidence absent defendant proof | Atria implicitly relied on CAFA removal being permissible | Court reiterated that no antiremoval presumption applies under CAFA but emphasized defendant still bears burden of proof |
Key Cases Cited
- United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg., Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv. Workers Int'l Union, AFL–CIO, CLC v. Shell Oil Co., 602 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir.) (describing CAFA's scope)
- Ibarra v. Manheim Investments, Inc., 775 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir.) (defendant must put forward evidence showing >$5M amount in controversy and that estimate is reasonable)
- Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 568 U.S. 588 (U.S.) (CAFA jurisdictional principles)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (U.S.) (plaintiff need not rebut amount-in-controversy until defendant meets initial burden)
- Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir.) (burden of establishing removal jurisdiction rests with proponent)
- Rodriguez v. AT & T Mobility Servs. LLC, 728 F.3d 975 (9th Cir.) (preponderance standard for amount in controversy under CAFA)