Gonzalez v. Peak California Restaurant Group

Background

The plaintiffs filed the action in the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa, on April 1, 2025. The complaint asserted eight claims, including unpaid overtime and minimum wages, meal- and rest-period violations, waiting-time penalties, wage-statement violations, unreimbursed business expenses, and unfair competition. The defendants removed the case to federal court on May 9, 2025, under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, known as CAFA. The plaintiffs then moved to remand, meaning they asked the federal court to return the case to state court.

Legal standard

CAFA gives federal courts original jurisdiction over certain class actions when the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million and minimal diversity exists. When removal is challenged, the parties submit evidence, and the court decides by a preponderance of the evidence—whether it is more likely than not—whether the jurisdictional amount is satisfied. The amount in controversy is an estimate of the total amount at stake, not a prediction of the defendants’ ultimate liability.

Court’s analysis

The defendants supported their removal calculations with a declaration from Patricia Ards, the director of human resources for the corporate parent of Peak Restaurant Partners LLC. The declaration relied on personnel files, payroll data, and other employment records and provided information about employee numbers, pay rates, workweeks, and pay periods. The court found this evidence sufficient to support the defendants’ calculations.

The plaintiffs disputed the assumptions but provided no competing calculations, declarations, or other evidence. The court rejected their reliance on complaint language stating that violations occurred “at times” or affected “or some of them.” Because those phrases were not supported by factual detail or evidence about violation frequency, the court found that they did not make the defendants’ assumptions unreasonable.

For unpaid overtime, the defendants assumed one hour of unpaid overtime per week for each class member. The court accepted that assumption and calculated $912,794.01. The court also noted that the estimate did not include other alleged unpaid-wage claims and that adding a limited estimate for liquidated damages would increase the amount by approximately $490,938.

For meal- and rest-period claims, the defendants assumed two missed meal breaks and two missed rest breaks per week for each putative class member. The court accepted those assumptions and calculated approximately $1,216,824.90 for each type of claim, or approximately $2,433,649.80 combined.

The defendants estimated $839,040 in waiting-time penalties by assuming a 100 percent violation rate for 200 former employees. They estimated $504,000 in wage-statement penalties based on approximately 224 non-exempt California employees, 5,152 pay periods, and the statutory penalty amounts. Finally, they estimated at least $438,337.50 in unreimbursed cell-phone expenses based on approximately 420 putative class members, about 35,067 workweeks, and $12.50 per workweek.

The court found that these estimates totaled approximately $5,127,821.31: $912,794.01 for overtime, $2,433,649.80 for meal and rest periods, $839,040 for waiting-time penalties, $504,000 for wage-statement penalties, and $438,337.50 for unreimbursed expenses. The court concluded that the amount-in-controversy requirement for federal jurisdiction was satisfied.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for an order remanding the action to state court. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin did not decide the underlying wage-and-hour claims in this order; the ruling addressed whether the case could remain in federal court under CAFA.