Thomas Hardwick v. Hoovestol, Inc.
2:20-cv-09707
C.D. Cal.Jan 19, 2021Background:
- Plaintiff Thomas Hardwick filed a representative PAGA action in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging wage-and-hour violations by Hoovestol, an interstate trucking company.
- Hoovestol removed to federal court asserting federal-question jurisdiction (FMCSA preemption of California meal/rest rules) and diversity jurisdiction (amount in controversy).
- Plaintiff moved to remand; the motion was fully briefed and taken under submission.
- Defendant relied on a 2018 FMCSA preemption determination under 49 U.S.C. § 31141 to argue California law is preempted as applied to commercial drivers.
- Defendant also argued the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 by aggregating PAGA penalties attributable to all aggrieved employees (using the 25% share for employees).
- The court held removal improper: FMCSA/§31141 did not completely preempt the PAGA claim (no federal cause of action), and Urbino prevents aggregation beyond penalties attributable to the named plaintiff, yielding far less than $75,000.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal-question jurisdiction (preemption) | Hardwick: claim is state law PAGA; federal preemption is a defense, not a basis for removal | Hoovestol: FMCSA order (49 U.S.C. §31141) preempts CA meal/rest rules as applied to commercial drivers, creating a federal question | Court: No federal-question jurisdiction; preemption is a defense and §31141 does not completely preempt or create a federal cause of action |
| Diversity / amount in controversy for PAGA | Hardwick: Defendant miscalculates amount in controversy; only penalties attributable to named plaintiff count | Hoovestol: May aggregate all aggrieved employees' penalties using the 25% employee share to reach $75,000+ | Court: Under Urbino only penalties recoverable by the named plaintiff count; Plaintiff's maximum recoverable penalties ≈ $5,100, so diversity jurisdiction fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (1983) (a federal defense, including preemption, does not create federal-question jurisdiction)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (well-pleaded complaint rule; complete preemption doctrine explained)
- Beneficial Nat. Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (2003) (complete preemption requires a federal statute to provide the exclusive cause of action and remedies)
- Urbino v. Orkin Servs. of California, Inc., 726 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2013) (PAGA penalties for amount-in-controversy are limited to those attributable to the named plaintiff)
- Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2010) (strong presumption against removal; doubts resolved against removability)