Siegel v. Therapymatch

Background

Lauren Siegel filed the complaint in state court on August 25, 2025. She alleged that she was a former employee of Therapymatch, Inc. and brought claims on her own behalf and on behalf of a proposed class. The complaint alleged failures to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation, provide meal and rest periods, maintain accurate records of hours worked, reimburse necessary business expenses, and furnish accurate wage statements.

Therapymatch removed the case to federal court on September 11, 2025, asserting jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. That statute requires, among other things, that the amount in controversy exceed $5 million, that at least one class member be a citizen of a different state from a defendant, and that the proposed class contain at least 100 members. Siegel challenged only the amount-in-controversy requirement. The court found the other two requirements satisfied: Therapymatch offered evidence that it is a citizen of Delaware and New York, Siegel alleged that she is a California resident, and the complaint estimated that the proposed class contained more than 100 people.

Amount in controversy

Therapymatch estimated that the meal- and rest-period claims placed $14,395,624.04 in controversy, using an assumed violation rate of 20%—one missed meal period and one missed rest period each week. Its calculation used company records concerning the number of proposed class members, the average number of 40-hour weeks worked, and the average hourly rate. The records identified 288 class members in 2021, 1,532 in 2022, 4,527 in 2023, 8,279 in 2024, and 10,117 in 2025. They also showed average numbers of 40-hour weeks worked and an average hourly rate of $125.15. Michael Kim, Therapymatch’s Director, Data Science and Analytics, explained the company’s recordkeeping and retrieval process.

The complaint alleged that Therapymatch “sometimes, but not always,” failed to provide meal and rest periods. It also alleged a systematic, company-wide policy and practice, a continuous and ongoing pattern of violations, and a policy of not providing meal periods or authorizing and permitting rest periods. The court concluded that these allegations reasonably supported assuming a 20% violation rate. The court further noted that even a 10% rate would produce an amount in controversy of $7,157,812.02.

Ruling

Judge Akine M. Chesney held that Therapymatch made a sufficient showing that the amount in controversy exceeded the Class Action Fairness Act’s threshold. The court therefore denied Siegel’s motion to remand. Because of its findings concerning the meal- and rest-period claims, the court did not address Therapymatch’s arguments concerning the amount in controversy for Siegel’s other claims. The court vacated the scheduled hearing and denied Therapymatch’s motion to strike portions of Siegel’s reply.