Luciano v. GS Operating, LLC
- James Donato
- 3:24-cv-05408
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Luciano v. GS Operating, LLC, Judge Donato denied remand because the amount in controversy supported federal diversity jurisdiction.
Pedro Luciano and GS Operating, LLC; the case remains in federal court, while the underlying wage-and-hour claims were not decided by this order.
What happened
Pedro Luciano brought California wage-and-hour claims against GS Operating, LLC, for himself and proposed classes of California employees. GS Operating moved the case from state court to federal court, and Luciano asked the federal court to send it back.
The court considered only traditional diversity jurisdiction, which requires the parties to be citizens of different states and more than $75,000 to be at stake. It accepted GS Operating’s estimate of about $20,850 in damages and found that likely attorney’s fees would raise the amount above $75,000.
Judge Donato ruled that removal to federal court was proper and denied Luciano’s request for remand. The ruling addressed federal jurisdiction and did not decide the wage-and-hour claims.
The detailed version
- Luciano v. GS Operating, LLC · No. 3:24-cv-05408
- James Donato
- Feb. 28, 2025
Background
Pedro Luciano sued GS Operating, LLC, in Alameda County Superior Court. He asserted several California wage-and-hour claims for himself and proposed classes of California employees. GS Operating removed the case to federal court based on traditional diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Luciano asked the federal court to remand, meaning return, the case to state court.
Jurisdictional issue
The court said GS Operating’s references to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), which permits removal of certain class actions involving more than $5 million, did not affect the analysis. GS Operating’s actual removal arguments relied on § 1332(a), so the court considered only whether the requirements for traditional diversity jurisdiction were met.
The parties’ only dispute under § 1332(a) was whether more than $75,000 was in controversy. The court considered only Luciano’s individual claim—not the claims of the proposed class—to determine that amount. Because the complaint did not state Luciano’s damages, GS Operating could provide the amount in its notice of removal. Once Luciano challenged the amount, GS Operating had to show by a preponderance of the evidence that more than $75,000 was at stake.
Court’s analysis
GS Operating estimated Luciano’s damages at approximately $20,850. Luciano did not dispute that estimate or provide contrary facts, so the court accepted it for jurisdictional purposes.
The court also counted attorney’s fees and costs that could be recovered under the California Labor Code. GS Operating estimated that Luciano’s attorneys would spend at least 117 hours on his individual claims at a blended hourly rate of $645, producing estimated fees of $75,465. The estimate was based on anticipated litigation tasks through trial, fee awards in similar wage-and-hour cases, and declarations from Luciano’s counsel in similar cases. The court said that even a substantially lower estimate—100 hours at $550 per hour—would be enough to exceed the jurisdictional threshold when combined with the damages estimate. It also found that at least $55,000 in fees and costs was not unreasonable for litigating a case through discovery, summary judgment, and trial.
Ruling
The court held that removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) was proper and denied Luciano’s request for remand. The order resolved the jurisdictional question; it did not decide the underlying wage-and-hour claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.