5:22-cv-00765
C.D. Cal.Jun 30, 2022Background:
- Plaintiff Thomas Byler III filed a putative class action in San Bernardino Superior Court alleging multiple California wage-and-hour violations (minimum wage, overtime, meal and rest breaks, expense reimbursement, wage statements, waiting-time penalties, and UCL claims).
- Crown Castle removed under CAFA, asserting minimal diversity, at least 299 putative class members, and an amount in controversy exceeding $5,000,000 based on payroll records and a 50% violation rate for meal/rest premiums.
- Crown Castle submitted the Declaration of its payroll manager (Gray Decl.) reporting 299 non-exempt California employees, average hourly rates (~$38), workday counts, 93 separations, and wage-statement counts.
- Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing Crown Castle failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the CAFA $5 million threshold was met.
- The core dispute was the reasonable violation rate to apply to meal/rest premium calculations; Crown Castle used 50%, while the court found that figure speculative and unsupported by the complaint or evidence.
- The Court granted remand (finding the amount-in-controversy requirement unmet), denied the pending motion to dismiss as moot, and vacated the hearing.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CAFA amount-in-controversy exceeds $5,000,000 | Byler: Crown Castle failed to prove >$5M by a preponderance | Crown Castle: Calculations place >$6.2M using payroll data and a 50% violation rate plus penalties | Court: Defendant failed to meet its burden; amount in controversy not established; remand granted |
| Whether a 50% violation rate for missed meal/rest periods is reasonable | Byler: 50% is speculative and unsupported by the complaint or evidence | Crown Castle: 50% supported by allegations of systemic policies and practices | Court: 50% is arbitrary; complaint alleges "all" and "not all" in ways that do not justify a 50% or higher rate; 25% (or lower) yields amount < $5M |
| Whether CAFA minimal diversity and numerosity are satisfied | Byler: not disputed | Crown Castle: asserts diversity and at least 299 class members | Court: Minimal diversity and numerosity satisfied (undisputed) |
| Effect on defendant’s motion to dismiss | Byler: sought remand first | Crown Castle: had pending motion to dismiss | Court: Motion to dismiss denied as moot after remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Ibarra v. Manheim Investments, Inc., 775 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2015) (defendant bears burden to prove CAFA amount-in-controversy by a preponderance; assumptions must be grounded in evidence)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (2014) (notice of removal need only allege a plausible amount in controversy, but if contested the court may require proof)
- Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398 (9th Cir. 1996) (preponderance standard governs amount-in-controversy disputes)
- Fritsch v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., 899 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2018) (future attorneys’ fees may be included in amount in controversy only to the extent authorized by applicable law)