Danielsson v. Blood Centers of the Pacific

Background

Ruby Danielsson filed a class action in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco. Vitalant, erroneously sued as Blood Centers of the Pacific, removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

Danielsson moved to remand, meaning she asked the federal court to return the action to state court. She argued that Vitalant had not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million, the jurisdictional threshold relevant to the removal asserted here.

Analysis

Vitalant submitted an original declaration and a supplemental declaration from Elizabeth Sweeley, its Senior Corporate Director, Total Rewards & HR Systems. The declarations estimated the number of putative class members, the number of weeks they worked during the class period, and their average hourly wage. Sweeley stated that the estimates were based on Vitalant’s human-resources databases, software, computer systems, and records, as well as her personal knowledge. She also described a review of payroll and timesheet data for non-exempt California employees covering March 29, 2015, through May 25, 2019.

The court determined that the declarations were substantially similar to the evidence the Ninth Circuit found insufficient in Ibarra v. Manheim Investments, Inc. In that case, the Ninth Circuit held that the parties needed to submit evidence about the violation rate before the amount in controversy could be established. The court therefore directed both sides to submit additional evidence concerning the violation rate and the disputed amount in controversy. The court stated that Vitalant had the ultimate burden of proof.

Disposition

The court did not grant or deny Danielsson’s motion to remand in this order. Instead, it ordered the parties to submit additional evidence by December 6, 2019, and continued the hearing to December 20, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.