Opinion
Case No.: SACV 20-02137-CJC(JDEx)
01-15-2021
MELANIE WALTHER AND EVELYN GARCIA, Plaintiffs, v. BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITIES, INC., and DOES 1-50, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND [Dkt. 14]
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Melanie Walther and Evelyn Garcia, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals, bring this putative class action against Defendant Brookdale Senior Living Communities and unnamed Does. (Dkt. 1-5 at 9 [Complaint, hereinafter "Compl."].) Plaintiffs, who worked at a senior living community, allege that they were employed by Defendant from 2016 to 2017. (Id. ¶ 2.) However, Plaintiffs were actually employed by Defendant's sister company, BKD Twenty-One Management Company, Inc. ("BKD Management"). (Dkt. 1 [Notice of Removal, hereinafter "NOR"] at 3 n.1.; Dkt. 25-1 [Declaration of Joanne Leskowicz, hereinafter "Leskowicz Decl."] ¶¶ 3-4.) Defendant asserts that since 2014, it has neither employed individuals in California nor conducted any operations within the state. (Id. ¶ 4.)
Plaintiffs initially filed their claims in Orange County Superior Court, alleging the following violations of the California Labor Code: (1) failure to pay all rest break wages, (2) failure to pay all meal break wages, (3) failure to pay all overtime wages, (4) failure to pay minimum wage, (5) failure to maintain accurate payroll records, (6) failure to pay all wages upon termination of employment, and (7) failure to pay for sick days. (Compl.) On November 4, 2020, Defendant removed the case to this Court, asserting jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). Now before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to remand. (Dkt. 14. [hereinafter "Mot."].) For the following reasons, Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED.
Having read and considered the papers presented by the parties, the Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing set for January 25, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. is hereby vacated and off calendar. --------
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to a federal district court when the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. "CAFA provides the federal district courts with 'original jurisdiction' to hear a 'class action' if the class has more than 100 members, the parties are minimally diverse, and the 'matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000.'" Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 568 U.S. 588, 592 (2013). "Congress designed the terms of CAFA specifically to permit a defendant to remove certain class or mass actions into federal court . . . [and] intended CAFA to be interpreted expansively." Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015). "[N]o antiremoval presumption attends cases invoking CAFA, which Congress enacted to facilitate adjudication of certain class actions in federal court." Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014).
III. DISCUSSION
The Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims because Defendant has failed to show that Plaintiffs' claims satisfy CAFA's $5,000,000 amount-in-controversy requirement. When a defendant removes a case to federal court, "the defendant's amount-in-controversy allegation should be accepted when not contested by the plaintiff or questioned by the court." Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 87 (2014). But where "the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the defendant's allegation" and "both sides submit proof," the defendant must prove the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.; Salter v. Quality Carriers, Inc., 974 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2020) (When a party "contests the truth of the plaintiff's factual allegations, usually by introducing evidence outside the pleadings . . . the responding party must support her jurisdictional allegations with 'competent proof' . . . under the same evidentiary standard that governs in the summary judgment context.").
Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs were not employed by Defendant, but rather by Defendant's sister company, BKD Management, which is not a named defendant in this case. (NOR at 3 n.1; Leskowicz Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) Consequently, Plaintiffs argue that CAFA's amount-in-controversy requirement is not met because Defendant cannot be held liable for Plaintiffs' claims. In response, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs' claims satisfy CAFA's amount-in-controversy requirement based on harms suffered by employees who were employed by BKD Management. Because Defendant has presented no evidence that it could be held liable for Plaintiffs' claims, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' claims fail to meet CAFA's amount-in-controversy requirement.
Even though Defendant is not Plaintiffs' actual employer, Defendant could still be liable for Plaintiffs' California Labor Code claims if an employment relationship existed between Plaintiffs and Defendant. Ochoa v. McDonald's Corp., 133 F. Supp. 3d 1228, 1232 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (citing Martinez v. Combs, 49 Cal. 4th 35, 64-68 (2010). But Defendant has failed to show that its amount-in-controversy calculations are based on harms suffered by persons with whom it had an employment relationship. For an employment relationship to exist where a defendant was not the plaintiff's actual employer, the defendant must have "(1) [] exercise[d] control over [the plaintiff's] wages, hours or working conditions," (2) [] suffer[ed] or permit[ted] [the plaintiff] to work, or (3) engage[d] [the plaintiff], thereby creating a common law employment relationship." Id.
Here, Defendant asserts that CAFA's amount-in-controversy requirement is met based on the number of hourly employees employed by BKD Management. (Dkt. 1-9 [Declaration of Brenda O'Keefe, hereinafter "O'Keefe Decl."] ¶¶ 3-7.) But Defendant provides no evidence that it had developed an employment relationship with these employees. (Id.; Dkt. 19 [Opposition] at 9-11.) Instead, Defendant asserts that it has not "conducted any operations in the state of California since [January 1, 2014]"—over two years before Plaintiffs allege that they were employed by Defendant. (Leskowicz Decl. ¶ 4.) Accordingly, Defendant has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that it could be held liable for Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs' claims therefore fail to meet CAFA's amount-in-controversy requirement. See Natividad Ausencio v. LVI Servs., Inc., 2015 WL 2330081, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2015) (finding the amount-in-controversy requirement was not satisfied when "the Complaint, Notice of Removal, and the evidence in support of the Notice of Removal do not allege, or provide any basis for treating the employees of [Defendants' subsidiaries] as Defendants' employees for purposes of determining the amount in controversy").
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion to remand is GRANTED. DATED: January 15, 2021
/s/_________
HON. CORMAC J. CARNEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE