1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 HASIM A. MOHAMMED, 8 Case No. 5:19-cv-01540-EJD Plaintiff, 9 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR v. LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR 10 RECONSIDERATION AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., 11 Re: Dkt. No. 24 Defendant. 12

13 Presently before the Court is Defendant’s motion for leave to file a motion for 14 reconsideration of the Court’s November 12, 2019 Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion To Remand. 15 Defendant contends that reconsideration is warranted in light of the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision 16 in Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott,

(9th Cir. 2019). The Arias decision is not a 17 proper basis for reconsideration because it was issued on September 3, 2019, and therefore does 18 not constitute a “change of law occurring after the time of [the Court’s order].” L.R. 7-9(b)(2). 19 Defendant should have brought Arias to the Court’s attention by filing a Statement of Recent 20 Decision. See Local Rule 7-3(d)(2). 21 Moreover, contrary to Defendant’s assertion, the Court’s Order does not “directly conflict” 22 with Arias. Defendant argues that Arias holds that a removing defendant in a wage-and-hour case 23 may rely on reasonable assumptions regarding violation rates to prove the amount in controversy. 24 The Court agrees that a removing defendant may rely on reasonable assumptions. Defendant’s 25 assumptions, however, “cannot be pulled from thin air but need some reasonable ground 26 underlying them.” Arias,

(quoting Ibarra v. Manheim Invests., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2015)). Defendant’s proffered assumptions were not reasonable because 1 they were not grounded in facts. Defendant assumed, without providing any evidence, that the 2 || number of ramp agents currently employed in California by Defendant was a reasonable estimate 3 of the number of employees encompassed in the proposed putative class of “[a]ll persons 4 || employed by Defendants and/or any staffing agencies and/or any other third parties in hourly or 5 || non-exempt positions in California during the Relevant Time Period.” Compl. § 11. Defendant 6 || also assumed, without providing any evidence, that the lowest base hourly wage for a ramp agent 7 under the current collective bargaining agreement was a reasonable estimate of the hourly wage 8 for class members during the Relevant Time Period. 9 “CAFA’s requirements are to be tested by consideration of real evidence and the reality of 10 || what is at stake in the litigation, using reasonable assumptions underlying the defendant’s theory of 11 damages exposure.” Ibarra v. Manheim Invests., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2015). 12 Defendant’s theory of damages exposure was not supported by real evidence of the number of putative 13 class members and their hourly wage rates nor by reasonable assumptions based upon that evidence. 14 || Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. A 16 Dated: December 9, 2019 aU. EDWARD J. DAVILA Z 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 || Case No.: 5:19-cv-01540-EJD ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION