Nora Gutierrez v. Dave and Matt Vans, LLC, 2:23-cv-02012

Plaintiff Nora Gutierrez filed a putative class action in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging Dave and Matt Vans, LLC (D&M) violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) by secretly recording/chat eavesdropping on users of D&M’s website chat feature. She seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief, and class relief.
Complaint estimates the class as “greater than 100 individuals, if not many more” and pleads one CIPA claim (statutory damages $2,500 per violation).
D&M was served on February 17, 2023 and removed the case to federal court under CAFA on March 17, 2023, asserting the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.
Gutierrez moved to remand, arguing D&M failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the CAFA $5,000,000 threshold is met.
D&M relied on an assumption of thousands of violations (e.g., 2,000 class members × $2,500) to reach $5,000,000, but offered no evidentiary support; the Court found D&M mischaracterized the Complaint (which estimates just >100) and held D&M did not satisfy its burden.
Court granted remand to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 23STCV00987.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CAFA’s $5,000,000 amount-in-controversy requirement is met	Gutierrez: D&M failed to prove by a preponderance that aggregate damages exceed $5M; Complaint estimates only >100 class members	D&M: Complaint’s class estimate could encompass thousands; statutory damages ($2,500/violation) times plausible class size exceeds $5M; attorneys’ fees/actual damages add more	Court: D&M failed to meet its burden; Complaint does not support thousands of violations and no record evidence was offered—remand granted

Serrano v. 180 Connect, Inc., 478 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2007) (CAFA jurisdictional elements for class actions)
Ibarra v. Manheim Investments, Inc., 775 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2015) (plaintiff’s complaint controls amount in controversy unless defendant rebuts by preponderance)
St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (U.S. 1938) (plaintiff’s good-faith claim governs amount in controversy)
Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, 728 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2013) (defendant bears burden to establish amount in controversy by preponderance when not evident)
Korn v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp., 536 F. Supp. 2d 1199 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (removing defendant need not fully prove plaintiff’s damages but must offer reasonable evidence/assumptions)
Lewis v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 627 F.3d 395 (9th Cir. 2010) (amount in controversy is an estimate of total dispute, not an admission of liability)
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2014) (no antiremoval presumption applies to CAFA removals)