Richard Reyes v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.
781 F.3d 1185
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Reyes sued Dollar Tree in California state court (rest-break/labor claims under Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7 and B&P § 17200) and filed an amended complaint seeking a class of assistant managers who missed 10-minute breaks.
- The amended complaint expressly alleged the aggregate amount in controversy was under $5,000,000 and (as later construed by the federal district court) was limited to shifts where class members worked alone.
- Dollar Tree removed under CAFA in 2012; the district court accepted Reyes’s narrow construction of the complaint and remanded as the amount-in-controversy then fell below $5,000,000.
- After remand, the California superior court certified a broader class (not limited to shifts worked alone) and the certified class undisputedly put more than $5,000,000 in controversy.
- Dollar Tree removed again within 30 days of the superior court’s certification order; the district court remanded a second time as untimely and as a prohibited successive removal.
- The Ninth Circuit held the superior court’s class certification order changed the jurisdictional circumstances, making the second removal timely and proper; it reversed the remand and instructed the district court to exercise CAFA jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state-court class-certification order created a new ground for removal (permitting a successive removal) | Reyes: No — the amended complaint’s class definition never changed, so removal was improper and successive | Dollar Tree: Yes — the superior court’s certification broadened the class (and amount in controversy), creating a new, removable ground | The certification order materially changed the jurisdictional facts and constituted a new ground for removal; successive removal permitted |
| Whether removal was timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) | Reyes: Time was triggered by the amended complaint (earlier) or by intermediate state filings (tentative ruling/reply), so removal was untimely | Dollar Tree: Time began when the superior court’s final certification order was issued; removal was within 30 days | Removal was timely because the 30-day clock began on receipt of the certification order (an ‘‘other paper’’ establishing removability) |
| Whether a tentative state-court ruling or plaintiff’s reply brief triggered removability | Reyes: Tentative ruling or reply brief signaled removability earlier, so removal window closed | Dollar Tree: Tentative rulings are not final; the reply footnote did not clearly establish removability | Tentative ruling has no jurisdictional effect; the reply footnote was insufficient to ascertain removability |
| Burden to establish CAFA jurisdiction at removal | Reyes: Plaintiff contends defendant’s pre-removal assumptions were speculative | Dollar Tree: Provides an unchallenged, plausible allegation about amount in controversy based on the certified class | Plaintiff did not sufficiently dispute defendant’s plausible showing; CAFA jurisdiction exists and district court must exercise it |
Key Cases Cited
- Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir.) (standard for reviewing remand orders)
- Rea v. Michaels Stores Inc., 742 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir.) (intervening change can create new ground for removal)
- Kirkbride v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 933 F.2d 729 (9th Cir.) (successive removal permitted when new grounds appear)
- O’Bryan v. Chandler, 496 F.2d 403 (10th Cir.) (amendment creating federal jurisdiction permits successive removal)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (U.S.) (defendant’s plausible jurisdictional allegation in notice of removal controls when unchallenged)