Litigating California Wage & Hour and Labor Code Class Actions

More documents

Recommendations

Info

have to engage in some fact-finding, not unlike what is necessitated by the existing jurisdictional statutes. The Committee further understands that in some instances, limited discovery may be necessary to make these determinations. However, the Committee cautions that these jurisdictional determinations should be made largely on the basis of readily available information. Allowing substantial, burdensome discovery on jurisdictional issues would be contrary to the intent of these provisions to encourage the exercise of federal jurisdiction over class actions. 315 Defendants eager to remove a case should also consider the possibility of sanctions in the event their removal petition is deemed unreasonable. The Supreme Court has noted that an award of costs and fees is permissible under Section 1447(c), when “such an award is just” and “the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removal.” 316 The Ninth Circuit has also previously stated that an award of attorney fees is permitted even when defendant’s removal was “fairly supportable,” but wrong as a matter of law. 317 But, a California federal district court has previously held that all a defendant may need to support the removal is an argument “that is not irrational or implausible.” 318 D. Exceptions to CAFA Jurisdiction There are narrow exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction. 319 The party that is seeking remand back to the state court bears the burden of proof in establishing any exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction. 320 1. Local-Controversy Exception Under the local controversy exception, a federal court must decline jurisdiction where: (1) greater than 2/3 of the proposed class members are citizens of the forum state, (2) at least one “significant” defendant (i.e., from whom significant relief is sought and whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted by the class) is a citizen of the forum state, (3) the principal injuries caused by the 315 316 317 318 319 320 Id. at 692 (citing S. Rep. No. 109-14, at 44, 2005 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 42 (emphasis added)). Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005); see also Mosaic Sys., Inc. v. Bechtolsheim, No. C 07-3892-SI, 2007 WL 3022581, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2007) (denying request for fees and costs given “objectively reasonable” basis for removal); Gardner v. UICI, 508 F.3d 559, 561-62 (9th Cir. 2007) (reversing award of fees and costs where removing party had “an objectively reasonable basis for removal;” if a “reasonable litigant . . . could have concluded that federal court was the proper forum” a request for fees and costs must be denied). Balcorta v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 208 F.3d 1102, 1106 n.6 (9th Cir. 2000). Hornung v. City of Oakland, No. C-05-4825 EMC, 2006 WL 279337, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2006). 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A)-(B). Serrano v. 180 Connect, Inc., 478 F.3d 1018, 1024 (9th Cir. 2007). Seyfarth Shaw LLP | www.seyfarth.com Litigating California Wage & Hour Class Actions (12th Edition) 70
alleged conduct or any related conduct of each defendant were incurred in the forum state, and (4) no other class action was filed within the past three years asserting the same or similar factual allegations against any of the defendants on behalf of the same or other persons. 321 Some circuits, including the Eleventh Circuit, have made it clear that the CAFA’s language favors federal jurisdiction over class actions and that its legislative history suggests that Congress intended the local controversy exception to be a narrow one, “with all doubts resolved ‘in favor of exercising jurisdiction over the case.’” 322 Consistent with this notion, several circuits agree that the party seeking remand back to the state court bears the burden to demonstrate that the court lacks jurisdiction under the “local controversy” exception. 323 The Ninth Circuit finally addressed this issue on January 25, 2011, in Coleman v. Estes Express Lines, holding that a “district court cannot look beyond the complaint in determining whether the criteria of subsections (aa) [“significant relief”] and (bb) [“significant basis”] have been satisfied.” 324 Thus, extrinsic evidence will not be considered in evaluating this exception. The court explained that this conclusion was required not only by the plain language of these subparts, but also because any contrary holding would result in an expansive “mini-trial,” contrary to congressional intent that jurisdiction determinations be made quickly under CAFA. 325 2. Home State Exception Under the home state exception, a federal court must decline jurisdiction where: (1) 2/3 or more of the proposed class members are citizens of the forum state and (2) the primary defendants are citizens of the forum state. 326 Unlike the local controversy exception, this exception does not require the court to consider other lawsuits. The party moving to remand the class action to state court must prove that the home state exception applies. 327 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4). Evans v. Walter Indus., Inc., 449 F.3d 1159 (11th Cir. 2006). See Serrano, 478 F.3d at 1019 (noting agreement with other circuits that party seeking remand must demonstrate applicability of “local controversy” exception); Frazier v. Pioneer Americas LLC, 455 F.3d 542, 546 (5th Cir. 2006); Hart v. FedEx Ground Package Sys. Inc., 457 F.3d 675, 680-81 (7th Cir. 2006); see also S. Rep. No. 109-14, at 44 (“It is the Committee’s intention with regard to each of these exceptions that the party opposing federal jurisdiction shall have the burden of demonstrating the applicability of an exemption.”). Coleman v. Estes Express Lines, 631 F.3d 1010, 1015 (9th Cir. 2011). Id. at 1017. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B). Serrano, 478 F.3d at 1024. Seyfarth Shaw LLP | www.seyfarth.com Litigating California Wage & Hour Class Actions (12th Edition) 71
Page 1 and 2:
Litigating California Wage & Hour a
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents I. Introduction a
Page 5 and 6:
A. Disclosure of Class Member Names
Page 7 and 8:
associated statutory penalties. 1 T
Page 9 and 10:
who does not meet the threshold com
Page 11 and 12:
exempt work is of a kind which in e
Page 13 and 14:
3) The employee performs his or her
Page 15 and 16:
decisions have concluded that under
Page 17 and 18:
Bell court to look beyond the Wage
Page 19 and 20:
place of business, would that quali
Page 21 and 22: IWC had the authority to promulgate
Page 23 and 24: stores” by providing them a porti
Page 25 and 26: declare such a system illegal witho
Page 27 and 28: employers should be able to defend
Page 29 and 30: waive the right to reimbursement, s
Page 31 and 32: Due to the ambiguity in the meaning
Page 33 and 34: For each workday the employer fails
Page 35 and 36: Arguably, no additional $100-per-pa
Page 37 and 38: permitted” the employee to work t
Page 39 and 40: federal decisions also held that an
Page 41 and 42: for all overtime hours worked. The
Page 43 and 44: much broader, such as the court’s
Page 45 and 46: In the appeal of Chau, the appellat
Page 47 and 48: years before the lawsuit, or for an
Page 49 and 50: imposition of penalties, 194 routin
Page 51 and 52: In one such class action, Elliot v.
Page 53 and 54: First, there has been a substantial
Page 55 and 56: Recent court decisions have begun t
Page 57 and 58: of her hours was paid at a rate of
Page 59 and 60: the limitations period for a penalt
Page 61 and 62: passage, then the employee could st
Page 63 and 64: all, but rather simply to proceed w
Page 65 and 66: Shortly thereafter, another Divisio
Page 67 and 68: and the ability to bring a collecti
Page 69 and 70: XIII. Class Action Fairness Act of
Page 71: the plaintiff is “master of her c
Page 75 and 76: Initially, the decisions were split
Page 77 and 78: XIV. Class Certification A. General
Page 79 and 80: expectations and the realistic requ
Page 81 and 82: In the immediate wake of Sav-On, th
Page 83 and 84: Similarly, employers may argue that
Page 85 and 86: A 5 to 4 ruling reversed the Ninth
Page 87 and 88: facility to the next, or variations
Page 89 and 90: employer’s defense arsenal, and t
Page 91 and 92: In reaching this conclusion, the Co
Page 93 and 94: party who seeks the same relief, pr
Page 95 and 96: is to be so maintained.” This det
Page 97 and 98: speech. 429 Therefore, the court he
Page 99 and 100: Puerto, or Crab Addison cases would
Page 101 and 102: epresentative. That question was an
Page 103 and 104: CashCall to disclose the identities
Page 105 and 106: nothing but still are bound by the
Page 107 and 108: Initially, there appeared to be a v
Page 109 and 110: the case. As any one of these class
Page 111 and 112: have any great impact on class sett
Page 113 and 114: plaintiff’s attorney and putative
Page 115 and 116: the California Supreme Court issued
Page 117 and 118: While California courts have essent
Page 119 and 120: The plaintiffs attempted to justify
Page 121: Breadth. Depth. Results. www.seyfar
show all

Litigating California Wage & Hour and Labor Code Class Actions

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?