Singh v. Consor North America

Background

Nitin Singh filed a proposed class action in Alameda County Superior Court against Consor PMCM, Inc., Consor Holdings, LLC, and Consor North America, Inc. He alleged violations of California wage-and-hour laws, including claims involving minimum wages, overtime, meal and rest periods, wage statements, expense reimbursement, timely payment of wages, sick pay, and unfair business practices.

The defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. They asserted that Singh’s individual claim placed more than $75,000 in controversy. Singh moved to remand, or return, the case to state court.

After Singh filed his motion, the parties stipulated to allow an amended complaint. The amended complaint limited the allegation that Singh was a non-exempt employee to approximately September 6 through October 31, 2025. The court nevertheless evaluated the amount in controversy based on the complaint existing when the defendants removed the case, rather than the later amended complaint.

Legal standard

When a plaintiff contests the amount in controversy, the removing defendant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. The court may consider evidence outside the complaint. The amount in controversy is an estimate of the amount disputed, not a prediction of the defendant’s ultimate liability.

Court’s analysis

The court considered three categories of potential recovery:

- Overtime: The court found that Singh’s claim placed at least $38,811.83 in controversy. The court relied on Singh’s claim filed with the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, which stated that he had worked 292.5 hours of unpaid overtime at an overtime rate of $132.69 per hour. - Waiting-time penalties: The court found that $21,230.40 was in controversy. The calculation used an alleged regular rate of $88.46, eight hours per day, and 30 days. Singh did not challenge the calculation but argued that the defendants could not assume a complete violation rate. The court rejected that argument based on his allegation that he was not paid all wages owed. - Attorney’s fees: The court included a conservative estimate of $40,000 in potentially recoverable attorney’s fees. It used a $400 hourly rate multiplied by 100 hours, based on recent cases and the court’s experience with attorney’s fees in the district.

Together, these amounts exceeded $75,000. The court also explained that Singh’s later amendment did not eliminate federal jurisdiction because jurisdiction was assessed when the case was removed. The court stated that the parties could still stipulate that the claim was worth $75,000 or less and remand the case to state court.

Disposition

The court denied Plaintiff’s motion to remand. The opinion does not identify the judge by name.