1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARWAN GREEN, Case No. 25-cv-06679-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 10 FLOWERS BAKERIES SALES OF NORCAL, LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 31 11 Defendant.

12 13 On November 6, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to remand and remanded this 14 case to the Alameda County Superior Court. (Dkt. No. 28.) The Court reasoned:

15 Defendant has not met its burden to show the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Even if the Court accepted Defendant’s assumption 16 that Plaintiff’s damages and penalties totaled $18,491, Plaintiff’s future attorneys’ fees award would not push the amount in 17 controversy beyond $75,000 because in a putative class action, “the potential attorneys’ fees should be attributed pro rata to each class 18 member,” Rosenwald v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,

, 1179–80 (9th Cir. 2025) (citing Goldberg v. CPC Int’l, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1982) (cleaned up), and Plaintiff estimates the class size to be at least 100 individuals. (Dkt. No. 1-2 ¶ 42.) 20 21 (Id. at 1-2.) Now pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion for leave to file a motion for 22 reconsideration of that order. (Dkt. No. 31.) Defendant argues it did not have the opportunity to 23 explain its position that Rosenwald did not apply. The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion. None 24 of the requirements for leave to file a motion for reconsideration are met. 25 BACKGROUND 26 This Court remanded this case because Defendant had not met its burden of showing the 27 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 under Rosenwald. Similarly, the Court issued an Order to 1 amount-in-controversy requirement is met in light of Rosenwald. Hass v. Flowers Bakeries of 2 Norcal, LLC,

*1-2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2025). Defendant filed a response 3 arguing attorneys’ fees should not be apportioned across the entire class, but the Court rejected 4 this argument and remanded the related case. Hass v. Flowers Bakeries of Norcal, LLC,

3295328 *3-5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025). Defendant’s response relied, in part, on Forrest v. MAV 6 KG, LLC,

(E.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2025), which the Court found unpersuasive 7 because it did not mention two binding Ninth Circuit cases: Rosenwald and Gibson v. Chrysler 8 Corp.,

, 942 (9th Cir. 2001). See Hass,

*4, *4 n.3. Those cases, 9 the Court held, require future attorneys’ fees to be apportioned across all class members when 10 calculating the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction. 11 DISCUSSION 12 Defendant’s motion argues it “was not able to explain its position that attorneys’ fees do 13 not need to be apportioned among the class members to determine the amount in controversy for 14 removal purposes and that Rosenwald did not apply.” (Dkt. No. 31 at 4.) Defendant 15 acknowledges, however, it raised this exact position in its response to the Order to Show Cause in 16 the related case. (Id.) And after Defendant filed the instant motion, the Court remanded the 17 related case, finding Defendant’s arguments in its response unpersuasive. See Hass,

3295328 at *4-5. 19 On a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, the moving party must show 20 “one of the following:”

21 (1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the 22 Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in 23 the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of 24 the interlocutory order; or

25 (2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order; or 26 (3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or 27 dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the 1 N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). None of these requirements are met. There is no “material difference 2 || in fact or law,” nor has there been an “emergence of new material facts or a change of law” 3 because Rosenwald is still good law. Defendant contends “the case of Forrest[,

||} 2753725] supports Defendant’s position in opposition to remand” in this case, (Dkt. No. 31 at 4), 5 || but Forrest does not present a change in law regarding apportionment of attorneys’ fees because it 6 || is a district court opinion that did not mention Rosenwald. For that same reason, there was no 7 “failure by the Court to consider ... dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the 8 || Court.” L.R. 7-9(b)(3). Defendant did not “present[] to the Court” its position regarding 9 || Rosenwald in its briefing in the instant case. Jd. Rather, Defendant explained its position in its 10 || response to the Order to Show Cause in the related case, and the Court reyected Defendant’s 11 arguments. See Hass,

*4-5, *4n.3. Accordingly, the Court DENIES 12 || Defendant leave to file a motion for reconsideration. 5 13 CONCLUSION 14 The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. 3 15 Since the Court’s order remanding the case, there has been no “material difference in fact or law” a 16 || or an “emergence of new material facts or a change in law,” and the Court did not “fail[] ... to 3 17 consider dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court.” L.R. 7-9(b)(1)-(3). It is S 18 still good law that when calculating the amount in controversy in class actions where diversity 19 || jurisdiction is alleged, “the potential attorneys’ fees should be attributed pro rata to each class 20 || member.” Rosenwald, 152 F.4th at 1179-80 (cleaned up). Defendant had the opportunity to 21 explain its position on this issue in the related case, and the Court rejected Defendant’s arguments. 22 This Order disposes of Docket No. 31. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: December 2, 2025 25 td 26 ne ACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE 27 United States District Judge 28