Victor Garibay v. Archstone Communities LLC
539 F. App'x 763
9th Cir.2013Background
- Archstone appeals a district court remand order in a California wage-and-hour class action brought by Garibay.
- District court held CAFA removal jurisdiction not proven since amount in controversy did not exceed $5 million.
- Defendants proffered a payroll-department declaration with numbers but little substantiation for key CAFA variables.
- Garibay alleged violations of Cal. Labor Code §§ 226, 203, and 226.7; Archstone assumed broad penalties without evidence.
- District court found Archstone’s assumptions speculative and insufficient to meet the preponderance standard under CAFA.
- Court noted Archstone could refile removal under Roth v. CHA Hollywood Med. Ctr if later evidence shows jurisdictional bar is met; opinion affirms remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAFA jurisdiction met? | Garibay contends CAFA jurisdiction exists since amount in controversy may exceed $5 million. | Archstone argues evidence shows amount in controversy exceeds threshold. | Not met; district court correctly denied removal. |
| Adequacy of removal evidence? | Garibay says evidence insufficient to prove amount in controversy. | Archstone asserts payroll data shows large potential penalties. | Evidence insufficient; preponderance standard not satisfied. |
| Penalty and fee calculations under Cal. Labor Code incorporated into amount in controversy? | Garibay argues penalties and fees could push above $5M. | Archstone relies on potential penalties and attorneys’ fees. | Not established by preponderance; underlying amount unlikely to reach $5M. |
| Role of attorney’s fees under Hanlon and Lowdermilk in CAFA analysis? | Garibay asserts fees should be included to meet threshold. | Archstone contends fees included, but evidence insufficient for $4M baseline. | Fees cannot satisfy the minimum without adequate underlying amount. |
| Effect of Roth post-remand possibility? | N/A | Archstone may remove again if new evidence shows jurisdictional bar is met under Roth. | Roth prospective remedy acknowledged; current decision affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) (CAFA burden of proof and jurisdictional standards)
- Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2007) (attorney’s fees included in amount in controversy; heightened scrutiny for jurisdictional evidence)
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (benchmark for reasonable attorney’s fees in class actions)