Marlin Mejia v. Chico's Fas, Inc.
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:24-cv-01007
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Mejia v. Chico’s Fas, Inc., Judge Chhabria denied returning the case to state court because more than $5 million was reasonably at stake.
Mejia and the putative class members whose wage-and-hour claims were used to calculate the amount in controversy, as well as Chico’s Fas, Inc.
What happened
In Marlin Mejia v. Chico’s Fas, Inc., the court considered whether the case should be returned to state court. Mejia’s complaint alleged multiple wage-and-hour violations based on Chico’s policies and practices, including waiting-time penalties and rest-period violations.
The court found Chico’s estimates reasonable. It accepted Chico’s estimate of $3,592,779.12 for waiting-time penalties and $2,334,276.35 for rest-period violations. Those two claims alone placed more than $5 million at stake, without counting other wage claims or possible attorney’s fees.
Judge Vince Chhabria denied the motion to remand. The court said the complaint’s allegations of policy-based violations supported Chico’s assumptions, even though the complaint also said violations occurred only “from time to time.”
The detailed version
- Marlin Mejia v. Chico's Fas, Inc. · No. 3:24-cv-01007
- Vince Chhabria
- Aug. 22, 2024
Background
The court ruled on a motion to remand, meaning a request to send the case back to state court. The opinion states that Mejia alleged multiple wage-and-hour violations based on Chico’s policies and practices. The claims included waiting-time penalties, rest-period violations, unpaid wages, overtime, meal-period violations, wage-statement violations, and unreimbursed expenses.
Court’s reasoning
The court found Chico’s estimate of the amount at stake reasonable. For the waiting-time claim, Chico’s used evidence about the approximate number of separated nonexempt employees, their average pay rates, and their shift lengths. The court accepted Chico’s estimate that this claim placed $3,592,779.12 in controversy.
For the rest-period claim, the complaint alleged that Chico’s had a policy or rule unlawfully prohibiting employees from taking unconstrained walks during rest periods. Chico’s assumed a 29.3% violation rate, reflecting one violation per workweek for both part-time and full-time nonexempt employees. The court found that assumption reasonable and accepted Chico’s estimate of $2,334,276.35 for this claim.
Together, those two claims placed more than $5 million in controversy. The court said this was so even before adding the other alleged wage violations or possible attorney’s fees. It also rejected the argument that the complaint’s statement that violations occurred “from time to time” made Chico’s estimates unreasonable, because the complaint also alleged that the violations resulted from company policies and practices.
Disposition
Judge Vince Chhabria denied the motion to remand. The opinion does not decide the underlying wage-and-hour claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.