1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISRAEL RODRIGUEZ, individually, Case No. 5:20-cv-02365-JWH-SPx and on behalf of other members of 12 the general public similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee ORDER ON MOTION OF ISRAEL 13 pursuant to the Private Attorneys RODRIGUEZ TO REMAND [ECF General Act (“PAGA”), No. 10] 14 Plaintiffs, 15 v. 16 URS MIDWEST, INC., a Delaware 17 corporation; UNITED ROAD SERVICES, INC., a 18 Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 Before the Court is the motion to remand filed by Plaintiff Israel 3 Rodriguez.1 The Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without a 4 hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. For the reasons discussed below, the 5 Court DENIES the Motion. 6 II. BACKGROUND 7 On April 2, 2019, Rodriguez filed his putative class action Complaint in 8 San Bernardino County Superior Court.2 On June 12, 2019, Rodriguez filed a 9 First Amended Complaint.3 Rodriguez alleges that Defendants failed to comply 10 with various provisions of the California Labor Code.4 On December 6, 2019, 11 Defendant URS Midwest, Inc. served discovery responses identifying that 12 “approximately 299” employees were “covered employees” during the relevant 13 time period.5 14 On November 10, 2020, Defendants removed this action to federal court.6 15 Defendants base their removal on

(d),7 which provides district 16 courts with original subject matter jurisdiction over class actions in which (1) the 17 amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000; (2) there are at least 100 proposed 18 class members; and (3) any member of the class “is a citizen of a State different 19 from any defendant.” 20 Defendants allege that they determined that this action was removable 21 based upon the allegations in the FAC and their own records. For example, with 22

23 1 Pl.’s Notice of Mot. and Mot. to Remand (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 10]. 24 2 Compl. (the “Complaint”) [ECF No. 1-1]. 3 First Am. Compl. (the “FAC”) [ECF No. 1-1]. 25 4 See generally FAC. 26 5 Decl. of Orlando Villalba in Supp. of the Motion ¶ 6 [ECF No. 10-1] & Ex. A [ECF No. 1-1]. 27 6 Notice of Removal [ECF No. 1]. 1 respect to Rodriguez’s claim for unpaid minimum wages, Defendants explain 2 that they calculated the amount in controversy as follows: 3 Based on URS Midwest’s records of hire and separation dates, 4 the Driver Class was employed for at least 21,919 weeks between 5 January 31, 2017, and the present. Assuming that each class member 6 worked only one hour of off-the-clock time in each of these weeks, 7 and assuming an average minimum wage over the class period of 8 $11.59 per hour, this claim would place approximately $254,041.21 9 in controversy. Because Plaintiff also seeks liquidated damages 10 under California Labor Code § 1194.2 (see FAC ¶ 66), which 11 provides for liquidated damages equal to the amount of unpaid 12 minimum wages, the amount in controversy is effectively doubled to 13 $508,082.42. (21,919 weeks x 1 hour/week $11.59/hour x 2 = 14 $508,082.42.)8 15 Similarly, Defendants explain their calculation of the amount in 16 controversy for the missed-meal-periods claim as follows: 17 Based on URS Midwest’s hours of service logs maintained 18 under Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act (FMCSA) regulations, and 19 URS Midwest’s records maintained for fuel tax reporting under the 20 International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA), the Driver Class worked 21 approximately 63,684 days in California during the class period. The 22 average hourly rate of pay for truck driver class members during the 23 class period was approximately $25.64 per hour. Accordingly, using 24 63,684 as the number of meal period premiums in controversy and 25 $25.64 as the value of each meal period premium, this claim places 26 $1,632,857.76 in controversy. (63,684 days x $25.64 = 27 1 $1,632,857.76.) And even if meal period violations occurred at a rate 2 of only 60%, this claim would still place $979,714.66 in controversy. 3 (63,684 days x $25.64 x 60% = $979,714.66.)9 4 Defendants perform similar calculations for other categories of damages, 5 and they arrive at a total amount in controversy of between $6,391,911.05 and 6 $8,024,768.80, which is composed of the following: (1) unpaid minimum wages 7 ($508,082.42); (2) meal period claim ($979,714.66 to $1,632,857.76); (3) rest 8 period claim ($979,714.66 to $1,632,857.76); (4) wage statement penalties 9 ($633,000.00); (5) waiting time penalties ($1,279,322.10); (6) unreimbursed 10 expenses ($733,695.00); and (7) attorneys’ fees ($1,278,382.21 to 11 $1,604,953.76).10 12 On December 10, 2020, Rodriguez filed the instant Motion. In his 13 Motion, Rodriguez does not dispute that the diversity or amount in controversy 14 requirements have been met, but, rather, he contends that Defendants failed to 15 remove this action in a timely manner.11 16 III. LEGAL STANDARD 17 “The removal statutes generally require a party to remove a case within 18 30 days of receiving the complaint.” Rea v. Michaels Stores Inc.,

, 19 1237 (9th Cir. 2014). “The statutes provide an exception to this rule: ‘if the 20 case stated by the initial pleading is not removable, a notice of removal may be 21 filed within 30 days after receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, 22 of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it 23 may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become 24 removable.’”

(quoting

(b)(3)) (emphasis in original). 25 26 9

(footnote omitted). 27 10

. 1 “[N]otice of removability under § 1446(b) is determined through 2 examination of the four corners of the applicable pleadings, not through 3 subjective knowledge or a duty to make further inquiry.” Harris v. Bankers Life 4 & Cas. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2005). “Thus, the first thirty-day 5 requirement is triggered by defendant’s receipt of an ‘initial pleading’ that 6 reveals a basis for removal.”

“If no ground for removal is evident in that 7 pleading, . . . the notice of removal may be filed within thirty days after the 8 defendant receives ‘an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper’ from 9 which it can be ascertained from the face of the document that removal is 10 proper.”

(citing

(b)) (emphasis added). “[D]efendants 11 need not make extrapolations or engage in guesswork,” but they must “‘apply a 12 reasonable amount of intelligence in ascertaining removability.’” Kuxhausen v. 13 BMW Fin. Servs. NA LLC,

(9th Cir. 2013) (quoting 14 Whitaker v. Am. Telecasting, Inc.,

(2d Cir. 2001)). 15 “Once defendant is on notice of removability, the thirty-day period begins 16 to run.” Harris,

. “[A] defendant who has not lost the right to 17 remove because of a failure to timely file a notice of removal under § 1446(b)(1) 18 or (b)(3) may remove to federal court when it discovers, based on its own 19 investigation, that a case is removable.” Roth v. CHA Hollywood Med. Ctr., L.P., 20

(9th Cir. 2013). 21 IV. DISCUSSION 22 The parties do not dispute that the amount in controversy requirement is 23 met nor that the parties are minimally diverse; they agree that this Court has 24 subject matter jurisdiction if Defendants’ removal was timely. Rodriguez 25 contends, however, that Defendants failed to file within the statutory deadline. 26 See

. As Rodriguez notes, Defendants did not remove the 27 1 action until well after a year had passed from the filing of the Complaint or the 2 FAC.12 3 Defendants argue that the 30-day removal clock did not begin to run with 4 the filing of either the Complaint or the FAC because both were 5 “indeterminate” regarding the amount in controversy, and Defendants were 6 therefore “entitled to remove the case ‘at any time.’”13 See Rea,

1238 (“as long as the complaint or ‘an amended pleading, motion, order or other 8 paper’ does not reveal that the case is removable, the 30–day time period never 9 starts to run and the defendant may remove at any time”); see also Roth, 720 10 F.3d at 1125 (“even if a defendant could have discovered grounds for 11 removability through investigation, it does not lose the right to remove because 12 it did not conduct such an investigation and then file a notice of removal within 13 thirty days of receiving the indeterminate document”). 14 Rodriguez responds that the pleadings “provide a basis for Defendants to 15 ascertain removability.”14 With respect to the amount in controversy, 16 Rodriguez notes that “the pleadings indicate that there are at least 101 class 17 members”15 and that the Complaint and the FAC state that “‘Plaintiff’s share 18 of damages, penalties, and other relief sought in this action does not exceed 19 $75,000.’”16 According to Rodriguez, Defendants were “on notice” regarding 20 the amount in controversy because they could have multiplied “$74,999 by 101 21 class members” to arrive at an amount in controversy of 7,574,899.17 22 23 24 12 See, e.g., Motion at 1:3-15. 25 13 Defs.’ Opp’n to the Motion at 12:1-9 [ECF No. 13]. 26 14 Motion at 5:17-18. 15 Id. at 6:20-21. 27 16 Id. at 6:21-23 (quoting Compl. ¶ 1; FAC ¶ 2). 1 Rodriguez’s argument does not withstand scrutiny. The pleadings state 2|| that Rodriguez’s share of damages does not exceed $74,999. This allegation does not provide information regarding other class members’ share of damages, 4|| nor does it preclude Rodriguez’s damages from being substantially less than 5|| $74,999. 6 The calculations that Defendants perform are significantly more 7 || complicated than “[mlultiplying figures clearly stated in a complaint.” Kuxhausen,

. Rather, Defendants presumably had to research 9|| relevant figures based upon their own information to derive the estimated 10 || amount that they alleged in the Notice of Removal. In adopting its “objective 11|| baseline rule,” the Ninth Circuit sought to avoid “the spectre of inevitable collateral litigation over whether the pleadings contained a sufficient ‘clue,’ 13 || whether defendant had subjective knowledge, or whether defendant conducted 14|| sufficient inquiry.” Harris,

. Because Defendants relied on their || own knowledge and investigation to estimate the amount in controversy, the 16 || Court finds that the removal is timely. 17 V. CONCLUSION 18 For the foregoing reasons, Rodriguez’s Motion to Remand is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. VL Dated: January 27, 2021 ‘ 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28