Robert Cantu v. C.R. England, Inc.
5:23-cv-02126
C.D. Cal.May 6, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Robert Cantu filed a class action in California state court, alleging multiple wage and hour violations by C.R. England, Inc.
- Claims include failures to pay overtime, provide meal and rest breaks, issue accurate wage statements, reimburse expenses, and comply with California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL).
- Defendant removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), requiring more than $5 million in controversy, minimal diversity, and over 100 plaintiffs.
- Plaintiff moved to remand the case, arguing Defendant did not establish the amount-in-controversy and that the court lacked equitable jurisdiction over the UCL claim.
- Defendant submitted declarations and calculations based on employment records, applying various violation rates to estimate the amount in controversy.
- The court denied Plaintiff’s motion to remand, finding Defendant met its burden under CAFA and subject-matter jurisdiction was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAFA Amount-in-Controversy Requirement | Defendant’s estimates are speculative, not based on evidence. | Calculations are based on conservative, reasonable assumptions | Enough evidence; amount in controversy exceeds $5M. |
| Violation Rate Assumptions | "At times" or "on occasion" doesn’t justify 25% rate. | Plaintiff’s representative status justifies class-wide rate. | Assumption is reasonable at this litigation stage. |
| Equitable Jurisdiction over UCL | Remand required for lack of equitable jurisdiction. | Partial subject matter jurisdiction prevents full remand. | No remand; court has jurisdiction under CAFA. |
| Minimal Diversity under CAFA | Not contested. | Established as required by CAFA. | Not at issue; CAFA requirements met. |
Key Cases Cited
- Broadway Grill Inc. v. Visa Inc., 856 F.3d 1274 (9th Cir. 2017) (minimum diversity standard for CAFA removals)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2014) (burden of proof for amount-in-controversy in removals)
- Arias v. Residence Inn, 936 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2019) (reasonable assumptions in CAFA matters)
- Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2015) (some reasonable grounds required for CAFA assumptions)
- Lee v. Am. Nat’l Ins. Co., 260 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2001) (partial federal subject matter jurisdiction prevents full remand)