Porfiria Yocupicio v. Pae Group, LLC
795 F.3d 1057
9th Cir.2015Background
- Plaintiff Porfiria Yocupicio sued Arch in California state court asserting nine class-based Labor Code claims and one representative PAGA claim; the class claims sought about $1,654,874 and the PAGA claim sought about $3,247,950 (parties and court assumed combined recovery plus fees could reach $5,000,001).
- Defendants (PAE Group, LLC and Arch Resources Group, LLC) removed under CAFA, asserting federal diversity jurisdiction because the total amount in controversy exceeded $5,000,000.
- Yocupicio moved to remand; the district court denied the motion concluding CAFA jurisdiction existed by aggregating the class-claim amount and the PAGA amount.
- Yocupicio obtained permission to appeal the remand denial under 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1); the Ninth Circuit reviewed the question de novo.
- The Ninth Circuit examined whether a non-class representative PAGA claim may be counted toward the CAFA $5,000,000 amount-in-controversy threshold and whether CAFA jurisdiction can be established by aggregating non-class claims with class claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amounts sought on a non-class PAGA representative claim may be counted toward CAFA’s $5,000,000 amount-in-controversy threshold | PAGA amount cannot be counted because PAGA is not a class action claim and plaintiff expressly did not seek class status for that claim | CAFA’s plain language permits aggregation of all claims in the action to reach the $5,000,000 threshold | Held: PAGA (a non-class representative claim) cannot be counted; CAFA applies only to civil actions that are class actions as defined in §1332(d) |
| Whether a PAGA claim is a "class action" under CAFA | Yocupicio: PAGA is representative but not a class action; plaintiff did not file it as a class claim | Arch: argued the representative nature and monetary stakes justify treating PAGA as class-type for CAFA aggregation | Held: Representative PAGA claims are not class claims under CAFA; expressly not seeking class status is fatal to CAFA jurisdiction over that claim (Ninth Circuit precedent) |
| Whether removal could be sustained by using PAGA amounts to confer CAFA jurisdiction over class claims, and then using class jurisdiction to cover PAGA claim (circular/supplemental jurisdiction) | Plaintiff: Circular aggregation is impermissible; the court would have jurisdiction over neither claim independently | Arch: sought to use PAGA sums to reach CAFA threshold for class claims, thereby sustaining jurisdiction over the entire action | Held: Court rejected the circular approach; because class claims alone did not meet $5,000,000 and PAGA lacks complete diversity, CAFA jurisdiction does not exist and remand is required |
Key Cases Cited
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (U.S. 2014) (CAFA jurisdiction framework and removability of class actions)
- Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345 (U.S. 2013) (CAFA’s purpose to bring certain class actions into federal court)
- Louie v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 761 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2014) (a plaintiff’s refusal to seek class status defeats CAFA jurisdiction over that claim)
- United Steel, Paper & Forestry v. Shell Oil Co., 602 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2010) (CAFA construction principles)
- Allapattah Services v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 545 U.S. 546 (U.S. 2005) (scope of original jurisdiction when at least one claim satisfies amount-in-controversy)
- Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 969 (Cal. 2009) (nature of PAGA representative claims under California law)