Farrer v. ezCater, Inc.

Background

Matthew Farrer filed a proposed class action in the California Superior Court for Alameda County. He alleged that ezCater, Inc. misclassified him and similarly situated delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. He also alleged that ezCater failed to provide required employment benefits, minimum wages, rest periods, and complete and accurate wage statements. The complaint sought attorneys’ fees under several California statutes and alleged that more than 100 individuals fit the proposed class definition.

ezCater removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires the parties to be citizens of different states and requires more than $75,000 to be in controversy. ezCater relied on Farrer’s potential attorneys’ fee award to satisfy the amount requirement.

Analysis

Farrer moved to remand, meaning he asked the federal court to return the case to state court. He argued that any potential attorneys’ fee award had to be apportioned among the proposed class members, so only his individual share could count toward the amount in controversy.

The court applied Ninth Circuit precedent holding that, when class claims are asserted, potential attorneys’ fees cannot be attributed entirely to the named plaintiff. At least one named plaintiff’s claims must satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement after including only that plaintiff’s share of the fees.

Farrer alleged that other delivery drivers were similarly situated and that his injuries resulted from ezCater’s common conduct toward him and the proposed class. ezCater argued that the complaint did not adequately show that any other class members existed. It relied on a declaration stating that ezCater contracted with Jobble, Inc., rather than directly with California delivery drivers. The court found that this evidence did not establish that Farrer had no class claims. The court also stated that the merits of Farrer’s theory—that he and other drivers performed work for ezCater and were therefore legally its employees—were not before it on the motion to remand.

Because ezCater did not argue that Farrer’s apportioned share of attorneys’ fees would exceed $75,000 if there were other class members, and because ezCater did not otherwise meet its burden, the court concluded that the amount in controversy for Farrer’s claim had not been shown to exceed $75,000.

Disposition

Judge Joseph C. Spero granted Farrer’s motion to remand and remanded the case to the California Superior Court for Alameda County. The court directed the federal clerk to close the federal case.