1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LAUREN SIEGEL, individually, and on Case No. 25-cv-07774-MMC behalf of other members of the general 8 public similarly situated, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 9 Plaintiff, MOTION TO REMAND; VACATING HEARING v. 10

11 THERAPYMATCH, INC., Defendant. 12 13 14 Before the Court is plaintiff Lauren Siegel's Motion to Remand, filed October 14, 15 2025. Defendant Therapymatch, Inc. has filed opposition, to which plaintiff has replied. 16 Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, 17 the Court deems the matter appropriate for determination on the parties' respective 18 written submissions,1 VACATES the hearing scheduled for December 12, 2025, and rules 19 as follows. 20 In her Complaint, filed in state court August 25, 2025, plaintiff alleges she is a 21 former employee of defendant. According to plaintiff, who seeks to proceed on her own 22 behalf and on behalf of a putative class, defendant, during the course of plaintiff's 23 employment and the employment of putative class members, failed to pay "minimum 24 wages and "overtime compensation," failed to provide "meal periods" and "rest periods," 25

26 1 Defendant's "Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion to Remand or, in the Alternative, for Leave to File Sur-Reply," filed November 13, 2025, is 27 hereby DENIED, as the Court, in reaching the decision herein, has not relied on the 1 failed to maintain "accurate records of hours worked," failed to indemnify "necessary 2 business expenses," and failed to furnish "accurate wage statements." (See Compl. 3 ¶ 1.)2 4 On September 11, 2025, defendant removed the above-titled action, asserting 5 federal jurisdiction exists under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). By the instant 6 motion to remand, plaintiff contends defendant cannot establish the requisite amount in 7 controversy, which amount must "exceed[ ] the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of 8 interest and costs." See

(d)(2).3 9 "[I]n assessing the amount in controversy, a removing defendant is permitted to 10 rely on a chain of reasoning that includes assumptions." Arias v. Residence Inn By 11 Marriott,

(9th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation and citation omitted). 12 "Such assumptions cannot be pulled from thin air but need some reasonable ground 13 underlying them."

(internal quotation and citation omitted). For example, "[a]n 14 assumption may be reasonable if it is founded on the allegations of the complaint." See 15

16 Here, defendant asserts the amount in controversy with respect to plaintiff's claims 17 alleging meal and rest period violations is $14,395,62404, assuming class members 18 experienced a 20% violation rate, i.e., one deprivation of a meal period and one 19 deprivation of a rest period each week. (See Def.'s Opp. at 7:15-26.) As defendant has 20 2 The parties dispute whether plaintiff and the putative class members are 21 employees or independent contractors. For ease of reference, the Court refers to said individuals as employees. 22 3 Plaintiff does not challenge defendant's showing as to the other two jurisdictional 23 requirements of CAFA, and the Court finds those requirements are met. With respect to the requirement that "any member of [the] class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different 24 from any defendant," see

(d)(2)(a), defendant has offered evidence that it is a citizen of Delaware and New York (see First Kim Decl., filed September 11, 2025, 25 ¶ 3), and plaintiff, in the Complaint, alleges she is a resident of California (see Compl. ¶ 8). Next, with respect to the requirement that "the number of members of all proposed 26 plaintiff classes in the aggregate is [at least] 100," see

(d)(5)(b), plaintiff alleges the putative class is "estimated to be greater than 100 individuals" (see Compl. 27 ¶ 29.a) and defendant has offered evidence that the number of putative class members is 1 explained, to arrive at such figure, defendant, for each year during the class period, 2 multiplied the number of employees by the average number of weeks worked, and then 3 multiplied the resulting sum by the average hourly rate. (See id.) 4 The figures used in defendant's calculation are based in part on evidence obtained 5 from its own records, namely: (1) the number of class members "during the period 6 beginning four years before the filing of the initial complaint and ending when notice to 7 the Class is sent" (see Compl. ¶ 26 (defining putative class)) is 288 in 2021, 1,532 in 8 2022, 4,527 in 2023, 8,279 in 2024, and 10,117 in 2025 (see Second Kim Decl. ¶ 4); 9 (2) the average number of 40-hour weeks worked by putative class members (see 10 Compl. ¶ 46 (alleging "[a]t all times relevant hereto, [p]laintiff and the Class have worked 11 more than eight hours in a workday"); Compl. ¶ 27 (alleging "[p]laintiff and the Class are 12 regularly required to work overtime hours")) is 0.15 in 2021, 0.29 in 2022, 1.55 in 2023, 13 2.46 in 2024, and 2.93 in 2025 (see Second Kim Decl. ¶ 5); and (3) the average hourly 14 rate earned by putative class members, which rate is the amount defendant would owe 15 plaintiff and putative class members for any missed meal and rest periods, see Cal. Lab. 16 Code § 226.7(c) (providing "[i]f an employer fails to provide an employee a meal or rest or 17 recovery period in accordance with a state law, . . . the employer shall pay the employee 18 one additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each 19 workday that the meal or rest or recovery period is not provided"), is $125.15 (see 20 Second Kim Decl. ¶ 7). 21 The declarant who provided the above-referenced figures is Michael Kim, 22 defendant's "Director, Data Science and Analytics," who has explained defendant's 23 process for maintaining employee records, as well as the manner in which he retrieved 24 those records. (See id. ¶¶ 2-3.) Plaintiff has offered no evidence to contradict the 25 showing made as to the number of putative class members, the average number of 40- 26 hour weeks worked, or the average hourly rate. Under such circumstances, the Court 27 finds defendant's showing as to the number of putative class members, as well as the 1 With respect to a violation rate, the Complaint states defendant "sometimes, but 2 not always," failed to provide meal and rest periods. (See Compl. ¶¶ 20-21.) Although 3 such allegation precludes a showing that plaintiff is claiming a 100% violation rate, 4 defendant, as noted, does not base its showing on a 100% violation rate, but, rather, has 5 shown the amount in controversy is established based on the assumption that the 6 violation rate is 20%. 7 In determining how often the meal or rest period violations occur where, as here, 8 the allegation is "sometimes," the Court has considered plaintiff's other descriptions of the 9 claimed violations. In that regard, plaintiff alleges (1) defendant "maintained a 10 systematic, company-wide policy and practice" of "failing to provide employees with 11 timely and duty-free meal periods" and "timely and duty-free rest periods" (see Compl. 12 ¶¶ 5.b – 5.c), (2) defendant's failure to provide meal and rest periods "was part of a 13 continuous and ongoing pattern of behavior" (see Compl. ¶ 11), and (3) defendant's 14 "policy and practice was to not provide meals periods" and to "not authorize and permit 15 . . . rest periods" (see Compl. ¶¶ 20, 22). 16 In light of such allegations, and keeping in mind that the amount in controversy is 17 "simply an estimate of the total amount in dispute, not a prospective assessment of [the] 18 defendant's liability," see Lewis v. Verizon Communications, Inc.,

(9th 19 Cir. 2010), and that "[a]n assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds the 20 jurisdictional threshold is not defeated merely because it is equally possible that damages 21 might be less than the requisite amount," see Arias,

, the Court finds it 22 reasonable to assume plaintiff's reference to "sometimes" encompasses a claim that the 23 violation rate was at least 20%, see Figueroa v. Multi-Color Corp.,

, at 24 *4-5 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2024) (holding, where complaint alleged "general pattern and 25 practice" of not providing meal and rest periods, but not "specific rate" of noncompliance, 26 defendant's assumption of 20% violation rate "reasonable"; citing cases finding 20% 27 violation rate "reasonable" where plaintiff did not specify "frequency" of missed periods); 1 30, 2019) (holding plaintiff's allegation that defendant had "pattern and practice" of failing 2 || to provide meal and rest periods supported defendant's assumption of 20% violation 3 rate). 4 Moreover, as defendant points out, even if the violation rate is assumed to be 5 10%, i.e. one deprivation of a meal period and one deprivation of a rest period every two 6 || weeks, the amount in controversy would still exceed $5,000,000, as, even if the 7 || percentage is halved, the amount in controversy would be $7,157 ,812.02. 8 Accordingly, the Court finds defendant has made a sufficient showing as to the 9 || requisite amount in controversy.* 10 CONCLUSION 11 For the reasons stated above, plaintiff's motion to remand is hereby DENIED. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 . 14 || Dated: December 4, 2025 AKINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 * In light of the Court's findings regarding the meal and rest period violations, the Court does not address herein defendant's arguments regarding the amount in 2g || controversy as to plaintiff's other claims.