Bonezzi v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc.

Background

Maria Elizabeth Bonezzi filed a class action in Marin County Superior Court on August 30, 2024. She sought to represent herself and similarly situated non-exempt hourly employees who worked for Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. in California during the four years before the complaint was filed.

The complaint asserted claims involving minimum wages, overtime wages, meal and rest periods, wage statements, final wages, payroll records, necessary business expenses, and California’s Unfair Competition Law. Bonezzi alleged that employees were required to perform unpaid pre-shift and post-shift work, including waiting to enter stores, undergoing bag checks after clocking out, and waiting for store-closing procedures.

The defendants removed the action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, which provides federal jurisdiction over qualifying class actions when the class has more than 100 members, the parties are minimally diverse, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Bonezzi moved to remand the case to state court.

Arguments and Evidence

Bonezzi argued that the defendants had not provided sufficient evidence to support their amount-in-controversy calculation and that their assumed violation rates were unreasonable. The defendants initially calculated $57,957,386.40 in controversy, including meal-period premiums, rest-break premiums, wage-statement damages, and waiting-time penalties. In their opposition to the motion, they also provided calculations for minimum and overtime wages, timely-wage damages, and attorneys’ fees. The court treated any new facts or calculations in that opposition as an amendment to the notice of removal.

To support removal, the defendants submitted a declaration from Devon Byrne, Ulta’s Vice President People Enablement. Byrne stated that she reviewed relevant personnel and employment records. She reported approximately 23,552 potential class members between August 30, 2020, and September 12, 2024, with an average hourly rate of $18.05. She also reported approximately 13,221 California non-exempt employees whose employment ended between August 30, 2021, and the present, with an average hourly rate of $17.64 during that period.

The defendants calculated waiting-time penalties using 13,221 potential class members, the $17.64 average hourly rate, eight hours per day, and the statutory maximum of 30 days. That calculation produced $55,976,659.20 based on a 100 percent violation rate. The defendants also argued that waiting-time penalties would total $5,596,819.20 using a 10 percent violation rate, which alone would exceed the $5 million requirement.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that a sworn declaration from a knowledgeable company representative who reviewed relevant records was sufficient evidence at this stage. The defendants were not required to produce all underlying employment data or calculate the exact frequency of violations.

The court then considered whether the 10 percent violation-rate assumption was reasonable. It relied on the complaint’s allegations of company policies and practices that allegedly caused systematic underpayment, unpaid pre-shift work, and widespread meal- and rest-period violations. The court also relied on Ninth Circuit authority stating that assumptions used to calculate the amount in controversy may be based on the complaint’s allegations, so long as the reasoning and assumptions are reasonable.

The court concluded that the complaint supported assuming that at least 10 percent of the potential class members were owed wages that could support waiting-time penalties. Because that assumption produced more than $5 million in controversy, the court found that the defendants had met their burden under the Class Action Fairness Act. The court did not reach the parties’ remaining arguments.

Disposition

Judge Tigar denied Bonezzi’s motion to remand. The opinion did not decide whether the alleged wage-and-hour violations actually occurred or whether Bonezzi or the class would recover damages.