Biru v. CENTRIA HEALTH CARE

Background

Bersabeh Biru filed the lawsuit against her former employer, Centria Health Care, LLC, in Alameda County Superior Court on August 30, 2024. She alleged that Centria maintained policies and practices that failed to pay employees for all hours worked. Her complaint asserted claims for minimum and straight-time wages, overtime wages, meal periods, rest periods, accurate itemized wage records, reimbursement of business expenses, violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, and civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. The complaint proposed a class of hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for Centria in California during the defined class period.

Centria removed the case to federal court on January 12, 2026, invoking the Class Action Fairness Act, or CAFA. CAFA gives federal courts jurisdiction over certain class actions when, among other requirements, the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, there is minimal diversity between the parties, and the case involves at least 100 class members. Biru did not dispute minimal diversity or the presence of at least 100 class members. She challenged only the timing of removal and Centria’s calculation of the amount in controversy.

Timeliness of Removal

Federal removal law generally provides two 30-day periods for removal. The first begins when the defendant receives the initial pleading, and the second can begin when the defendant receives an amended pleading, motion, order, or other paper that first makes removability ascertainable. The court explained that these periods begin only when the relevant document affirmatively reveals the facts needed for federal jurisdiction. A defendant may also remove after discovering through its own investigation that a case is removable, but a defendant receiving a facially unclear complaint has no duty to investigate further.

The court held that neither 30-day period was triggered. The complaint did not identify a specific amount of damages or class size from which Centria could determine that more than $5 million was at stake. Biru did not identify another document that triggered the second 30-day period. The court rejected her argument that Centria should have used information it already possessed to determine removability earlier. The court therefore found that removal was timely.

Amount in Controversy

Centria initially estimated $8,934,300 was in controversy, including attorney fees. Because Biru challenged that estimate, Centria had to show by a preponderance of the evidence—meaning that it was more likely than not—that the amount exceeded $5 million. The court could consider the complaint and evidence comparable to evidence used at summary judgment, but Centria could not rely on speculation or unreasonable assumptions.

The court rejected Biru’s argument that Centria used an improper end date for the class period. Biru’s complaint defined the proposed class period as continuing until class notice was sent. Because class notice had not been sent, the court held that Centria could use employment data through October 19, 2025 when calculating the amount in controversy at the time of removal.

The court also rejected Biru’s challenges to a declaration from Lisa Cunningham, Centria’s Senior Vice President of Human Resources. Cunningham stated that she was familiar with Centria’s operations and personnel records and identified the number of potential class members, average hourly rates, workweeks, and related subclass information based on her review of company records. The court held that Centria did not need to submit the underlying business records, explain every detail of its average wage calculation, or provide evidence of actual violation rates, so long as its assumptions were reasonable and tied to the complaint.

Claim Calculations

The court excluded $1,719,744 that Centria attributed to an anticipated waiting-time-penalty claim because that claim was not part of the complaint operative when Centria removed the case.

For the unpaid minimum and straight-time wage claim, the court accepted Centria’s estimate of $2,877,858. Centria assumed two hours of unpaid work per class member per week and included liquidated damages. For the overtime claim, the court accepted the estimate of $179,866, based on an assumed 30 minutes of off-the-clock work per week paid at the overtime premium. The court found these assumptions reasonable in light of Biru’s allegations that employees regularly performed off-the-clock work and that her work schedule was typical of the class.

For the meal-period and rest-period claims, the court accepted an estimate of $646,246 for each claim. Centria assumed violations in 20 percent of eligible shifts. The court found that assumption reasonable because Biru alleged that meal and rest-period violations occurred regularly, but not always.

For the wage-statement claim, the court accepted Centria’s estimate of $737,750. The court found reasonable Centria’s assumption that all 7,512 wage statements issued to 269 class members during the statutory period were inaccurate, given the complaint’s allegations concerning unpaid wages and related meal, rest, and overtime violations.

For unreimbursed business expenses, the court rejected Centria’s assumption of $10 per workweek and instead used $5 per workweek, producing an estimate of $169,685. Even with that reduction, the court calculated the damages in controversy as $5,258,011: $2,877,858 for minimum and straight-time wages, $179,866 for overtime, $646,246 for meal periods, $646,246 for rest periods, $737,750 for wage statements, and $169,685 for unreimbursed expenses.

The court did not need to decide whether Centria’s separate estimate of prospective attorney fees was adequately supported because the damages calculation alone exceeded CAFA’s $5 million threshold.

Disposition

The court DENIED Biru’s motion to remand, Docket No. 13. It also set a case-management conference for September 22, 2026, and directed the parties to file a joint case-management statement by September 15, 2026.