Banuelos v. Dominos Pizza LLC, a Michigan limited liability company

Background

Benjamin Banuelos filed a proposed class action in California state court against Dominos Pizza LLC, alleging nine violations of California wage-and-hour laws. The claims concerned unpaid straight-time and overtime wages, meal and rest periods, final wages, wage statements, employee expenses, employment records, and unfair business practices. Banuelos sought to represent people who worked for a defendant in California as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees during the proposed class period.

Domino’s removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, a federal law that permits federal jurisdiction over certain class actions when, among other requirements, the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Banuelos moved to remand, meaning to return the case to state court. He challenged Domino’s showing that the amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied.

Amount in Controversy

Because Banuelos made a factual challenge to federal jurisdiction, Domino’s had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million. Domino’s submitted declarations concerning the number of potential class members, workweeks, and wage rates, but the court found that several assumed violation frequencies lacked support in the complaint or evidence.

For the straight-time and overtime claims, the court used an assumption that 25 percent of class members experienced two hours of unpaid work per week. It calculated $352,820.16 for straight-time wages and $529,230.24 for overtime wages, totaling $882,050.40.

The court calculated liquidated damages at $193,693.50, using a minimum wage of $13 per hour. For meal and rest periods, the court assumed one violation of each type per week for 25 percent of class members, producing $176,410.08 for each claim and $352,820.16 together.

For the wage-statement claim, the court rejected Domino’s assumption that all relevant employees would receive the maximum penalties and instead used the more conservative amount proposed by Banuelos, $98,000. The court also used Banuelos’s proposed amount for waiting-time penalties, $369,112.80, rather than assuming that every potentially eligible employee could recover the maximum penalty.

The court rejected Domino’s proposed 25-percent benchmark for attorneys’ fees. Even assuming that attorneys’ fees could be recovered on all the claims, however, the court estimated those fees at $379,135.37. The resulting total was $2,274,812.23, well below the $5 million CAFA threshold.

Rulings

The court granted Banuelos’s motion to remand and remanded the case to the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara. The court also granted Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice as to the existence of the court filings attached to his request.

Because the case was remanded, the court terminated Domino’s pending motion to compel arbitration without prejudice. It also vacated the initial case-management conference scheduled for March 20, 2025.