Pantoja v. RAMCO Enterprises,L.P.

Background

The case began in California state court in 2014 as a proposed class action against RAMCO Enterprises. The claims concerned alleged underpayment of wages, including minimum wages, overtime, rest-period compensation, and work-related expense reimbursement. The state court later replaced Beatriz Cisneros Pantoja with Carmela Maribel Arroyo as class representative. According to the opinion, Pantoja settled her individual claims with RAMCO.

On May 7, 2019, Arroyo filed and served a motion for class certification with a spreadsheet identifying thousands of potential class members. The spreadsheet listed some members as residing outside California. The state court granted class certification on June 10, 2019. RAMCO removed the case to federal court on June 12, 2019, and Arroyo moved to remand it to state court and requested attorney’s fees.

Remand ruling

The court analyzed removal under the Class Action Fairness Act, a federal law that permits federal jurisdiction over certain class actions when there is minimal diversity, at least 100 class members, and more than $5 million in controversy. RAMCO conceded that it had known more than 30 days before removal that the proposed class had at least 100 members. The parties did not dispute that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million, but they disputed when RAMCO could first determine that requirement was met.

The court held that Arroyo’s July 29, 2015 settlement conference statement provided enough detail to show that more than $5 million was in controversy. The statement demanded $11.5 million, itemized claimed penalties and wages, identified the number of covered employees, and explained the calculation of the claimed damages. The court found that the amount in controversy was therefore ascertainable almost four years before removal.

The court then considered minimal diversity. Although residence is not always the same as citizenship, the court held that a person’s residence is initial evidence of domicile and citizenship. Because the May 7, 2019 spreadsheet identified multiple class members who resided outside California, the court found that RAMCO had a sufficient basis to ascertain minimal diversity on that date. RAMCO removed more than 30 days later, so the court held that removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3).

Attorney’s-fee ruling and disposition

The court concluded that RAMCO’s removal was not objectively unreasonable because the parties did not dispute that federal jurisdiction existed; RAMCO’s error was filing after the deadline. The court therefore denied Arroyo’s request for attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Judge Lucy H. Koh granted Arroyo’s motion to remand, denied her request for attorney’s fees, directed that the case be returned to the Superior Court of California for Monterey County, and ordered the federal clerk to close the file.