Nacarino v. Amazon.Com, Inc.
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-02099
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Nacarino v. Prime Now, Judge Rogers granted remand because defendants did not show the dispute exceeded the $75,000 federal-jurisdiction threshold.
Elena Nacarino, Prime Now, LLC, and Amazon.com, Inc.; the action proceeds in California state court rather than federal court, and the federal court did not decide the pending motion to dismiss.
What happened
Nacarino v. Amazon.Com, Inc. involved Elena Nacarino’s state wage-penalty lawsuit against Prime Now, LLC and Amazon.com, Inc. She alleged that the companies failed to pay required wages, provide meal and rest periods, give accurate wage statements, timely pay wages after termination, and reimburse business expenses. The defendants moved the case from California state court to federal court.
Nacarino asked the federal court to send the case back because the defendants had not shown that the amount at stake exceeded $75,000. The court found that the defendants had used an improper penalty calculation and had counted all potential penalties even though the law limited Nacarino’s share to 25 percent. Even accepting the defendants’ estimate of $83,800 in penalties, Nacarino’s share would be $20,950, and attorney fees would not raise the total above $75,000.
The court granted the motion to remand, ordered the case returned to the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County, and closed the federal case. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers did not decide the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Nacarino v. Amazon.Com, Inc. · No. 4:20-cv-02099
- Yvonne Rogers
- May 8, 2020
Background
Elena Nacarino brought a California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action seeking civil penalties based on alleged Labor Code violations by Prime Now, LLC and Amazon.com, Inc. She alleged that she worked as a shopper filling grocery orders for home delivery and that defendants failed to pay minimum, regular, and overtime wages; provide meal and rest periods; provide accurate itemized wage statements; timely pay wages due upon termination; and reimburse business expenses.
The defendants removed the action from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Francisco, to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Nacarino moved to remand, arguing that the defendants had not established that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that the party seeking removal bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that federal jurisdiction exists. It also noted that a federal court must remand a case if it appears before final judgment that subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking.
The court found that defendants’ calculation improperly applied the higher rate for later PAGA violations to the period before Nacarino notified the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency. The court also found that defendants had improperly included 100 percent of the potential PAGA penalties, even though PAGA limits the plaintiff’s share to 25 percent and requires 75 percent to be distributed to the agency.
Defendants’ notice of removal estimated $83,800 in penalties. Even assuming that estimate was correct, 25 percent would be $20,950. The court stated that adding reasonable attorney fees would not bring the amount in controversy above $75,000.
Disposition
The court granted Nacarino’s motion to remand, directed the clerk to return the action to the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, and closed the federal file. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers did not reach the issues in defendants’ pending motion to dismiss because the case was being remanded. The order also vacated the hearing scheduled for May 12, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.