Green v. Flowers Bakeries Sales of Norcal

Background

On November 6, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff Marwan Green’s motion to remand and sent the case to the Alameda County Superior Court. The Court had found that Defendant Flowers Bakeries Sales of Norcal, LLC had not shown that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, the amount required for the asserted diversity jurisdiction.

The Court explained that, even if it accepted Defendant’s estimate that Plaintiff’s damages and penalties totaled $18,491, potential future attorneys’ fees would not raise the amount in controversy above $75,000. In a proposed class action, the Court applied the rule that potential attorneys’ fees should be attributed proportionally among the class members. Plaintiff had estimated that the class included at least 100 people.

Motion for Reconsideration

Defendant asked for leave, or permission, to file a motion for reconsideration of the remand order. Defendant argued that it had not had an opportunity to explain why the rule concerning proportional allocation of attorneys’ fees did not apply.

The Court noted that Defendant had raised the same position in its response to an order requiring an explanation in a related case. The Court had rejected those arguments and remanded the related case as well. Defendant also relied partly on Forrest v. MAV KG, LLC, but the Court found that decision unpersuasive because it did not address two binding Ninth Circuit decisions, including Rosenwald v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. The Court stated that Forrest did not represent a change in the law because it was a district court decision that did not mention Rosenwald.

Legal Standard and Ruling

Under Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 7-9(b), a party seeking permission to request reconsideration of an interlocutory order must show one of three things: a material difference in fact or law that could not reasonably have been known earlier; new material facts or a change in law after the order; or the Court’s failure to consider material facts or decisive legal arguments that were actually presented.

The Court found that none of these requirements was met. There was no material difference in fact or law, no new material facts or change in law, and no failure to consider arguments presented in this case. The Court stated that Rosenwald remained good law and continued to require potential attorneys’ fees to be allocated proportionally among class members when calculating the amount in controversy in a class action alleging diversity jurisdiction.

The Court DENIED Defendant’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The order disposes of Docket No. 31.