Romulus v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
770 F.3d 67
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Five named CVS Shift Supervisors sued in Massachusetts state court for unpaid wages under the Massachusetts Wage Act and overtime statutes, alleging supervisors were required to remain on premises during breaks and were not paid.
- Plaintiffs alleged hundreds or thousands of class members since July 25, 2008, but the First Amended Complaint did not state an aggregate damages number or necessary data (number of breaks).
- CVS removed within 30 days of initial service once, and the district court remanded; the parties resumed state-court discovery.
- Plaintiffs provided an email on January 18, 2013 reporting they found 116,499 potential violations in a data sample (Aug 2010–June 2012); CVS filed a second notice of removal within 30 days of that email.
- The district court remanded again, holding the second removal untimely because the email was based on CVS data (so CVS should have discovered removability earlier) and found CVS failed to show the $5 million CAFA amount-in-controversy.
- The First Circuit reversed: it held the 30-day clocks under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) are triggered only when the plaintiff’s pleading or subsequent paper supplies a clear damages statement or facts allowing easy calculation; the January 18 email was an "other paper" that triggered § 1446(b)(3) and CVS met its burden as to amount in controversy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When do § 1446(b) 30-day removal clocks run? | §1446(b)(1) runs from service in every case; defendant must investigate to ascertain removability earlier. | Clocks run only when plaintiff's complaint or later paper makes removability apparent; defendant has no duty to investigate beyond plaintiff papers. | The clocks are triggered when the plaintiff's pleading or other paper either states damages or provides facts allowing easy calculation; defendant need not independently investigate. |
| Is plaintiffs' January 18, 2013 email an "other paper" under §1446(b)(3)? | Email was based on CVS data and not "new," so it cannot trigger §1446(b)(3). | Plaintiff correspondence about damages can be an "other paper" that starts the 30-day clock even if data originated from defendant. | "Other paper" is construed broadly; the email qualified and triggered §1446(b)(3). |
| Must defendant investigate its own records before removal? | Defendant has a duty to investigate and could have discovered removability earlier from its records. | No duty to investigate; defendant must apply reasonable intelligence to plaintiff papers but is not required to search its own files to trigger removal. | No affirmative duty to investigate outside plaintiff papers for triggering §1446(b); focus is on plaintiff-provided papers. |
| Did CVS satisfy CAFA amount-in-controversy (> $5M)? | Plaintiffs argued CVS's calculations were speculative (e.g., 15% discount, time frame, attorneys' fees). | CVS produced calculations extrapolating plaintiffs' estimate and wage data to show a reasonable probability exceeding $5M. | CVS met its burden; even conservative calculations showed > $5M in controversy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345 (U.S. 2013) (CAFA $5 million amount-in-controversy threshold principle)
- Amoche v. Guar. Trust Life Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2009) (reasonable-probability standard for amount-in-controversy under CAFA)
- Walker v. Trailer Transit, Inc., 727 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2013) (bright-line rule: inquiry limited to plaintiff's pleading or other paper to trigger §1446(b) clocks)
- Cutrone v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 749 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2014) (plaintiff paper triggers clock when it states damages or sets forth facts from which amount can be ascertained)
- Kuxhausen v. BMW Fin. Servs. NA LLC, 707 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2013) (defendant must apply reasonable intelligence to plaintiff's papers; simple calculations permitted)
- Addo v. Globe Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 230 F.3d 759 (5th Cir. 2000) (post-complaint demand letter can be an "other paper")
- Babasa v. LensCrafters, Inc., 498 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2007) (plaintiff letter estimating damages can trigger §1446(b))
- Woburn Five Cents Sav. Bank v. Robert M. Hicks, Inc., 930 F.2d 965 (1st Cir. 1991) (notice-based rationale for starting the 30-day clock)
- Envtl. Def. v. Duke Energy Corp., 549 U.S. 561 (U.S. 2007) (same statutory-term presumption where same term appears in a statute)