2:25-cv-03302
C.D. Cal.Jun 4, 2025Background
- Plaintiff, Silvia Garcia, filed a class action in California state court alleging that Henkel Corporation engaged in false advertising by displaying fictitious regular prices and phantom discounts on its website.
- The case was removed to federal court by Henkel under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), asserting that the amount in controversy exceeded $5,000,000.
- Plaintiff moved to remand the case, arguing that Henkel failed to prove the jurisdictional minimum required for federal court under CAFA.
- Henkel supported its removal with a declaration estimating $2 million in sales over four years, used to argue compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and value of potential injunctive relief.
- The plaintiff challenged the relevance and accuracy of Henkel’s sales data, emphasizing the class period was limited to three years per the statute of limitations and that the value of injunctive relief was speculative.
- The court ultimately found Henkel’s evidence insufficient and granted the motion to remand, sending the case back to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amount in Controversy (CAFA) | Henkel’s calculation is inflated, speculative, and includes sales outside the class period | The sales, punitive damages, fees, and injunctive costs together exceed $5 million | Henkel failed to prove by a preponderance that $5M is exceeded |
| Statute of Limitations Application | Only sales from a 3-year period are relevant to class claims | Statute of limitations is a defense and should not limit amount in controversy | The relevant period for calculating controversy is the class period alleged |
| Calculation of Injunctive Relief | Henkel’s estimate is unsupported and hypothesizes relief not sought | Value of injunctive relief (lost sales) should be included | Injunctive relief estimate was too speculative and not tied to claims |
| Burden of Proof on Removal | Henkel bears the burden to provide non-speculative, backed evidence | Removal need only assert a plausible amount, with evidence as needed | Failure to produce sufficient, non-speculative evidence; removal denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (no antiremoval presumption under CAFA and plausible pleading for amount in controversy)
- Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 (burden on the proponent of federal jurisdiction under CAFA)
- Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976 (summary-judgment-type evidence may be used for amount in controversy)